Permission Denied Error: running

Showing posts with label running. Show all posts

Friday, March 30, 2012

pfpagealloc error

I am running Sql Server 2005 SP 2 CTP and keep getting an error which says Internal Error pfpagealloc.cpp file is corrupt. This did not happen with SP1 and is very speradic. I get the problem when using both excel and the visual studio browser to manipulate an anylsis services database. I can then try again and everything works. I also get the same problem sometimes with my overnight rebuild of the cube.

Paul

Please, please. If you can catch the repro schenario, create a report with http://connect.microsoft.com/sql.

Edward.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

|||

We just applied SP 2 CTP and we are periodically getting the same error.

However, if we run the same MDX query immediately, we do not encounter it again. We can then run many other MDX queries without incident, but eventually we will generate the error again.

Error message is below:

Executing the query ...

Internal error: An unexpected error occurred (file 'pfpagealloc.cpp', line 428, function 'PFPageAllocator::PFPageAllocator').

Execution complete

|||

Please report this with http://connect.microsoft.com/sql.

This looks like a memory pressure problem. See if you get enoght memory for Analysis Server.

Edward.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

|||

This is exactly the issue I was getting and I did try to log my problem with connect. Unfortunately they obviously needed log files to be able to trace the problem and as unfortunately the system was live I had to go back to sp1.

Please let me know if you have any luck with a resolution I will contine to check on connect site.

pfpagealloc error

Paul

Please, please. If you can catch the repro schenario, create a report with http://connect.microsoft.com/sql.

Edward.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

|||

We just applied SP 2 CTP and we are periodically getting the same error.

However, if we run the same MDX query immediately, we do not encounter it again. We can then run many other MDX queries without incident, but eventually we will generate the error again.

Error message is below:

Executing the query ...

Internal error: An unexpected error occurred (file 'pfpagealloc.cpp', line 428, function 'PFPageAllocator::PFPageAllocator').

Execution complete

|||

Please report this with http://connect.microsoft.com/sql.

This looks like a memory pressure problem. See if you get enoght memory for Analysis Server.

Edward.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

|||

Please let me know if you have any luck with a resolution I will contine to check on connect site.

sql

PF numbers

Hello!
I am puzzled by PF Usage numbers reported on our SQL server. It is SQL
Server 2000 (SP3a) running on Windows 2003 Enterprise Server with 12 GB of
RAM. SQL Server is restricted to 10GB. There is only one page file 2046MB.
When I open Task Manager PF Usage numbers are 10.3 GB. I am not sure how
this number is calculated. According to help : It is 'The amount of paging
file being used by the system.' Considering I have paging file 2GB big how
come Task Manager shows 10.3 GB?
Thanks you in advance,
Igor
Hi
Have you checked that the Page File is not also on other discs?
What does performance monitor show for this?
John
"imarchenko" wrote:

> Hello!
> I am puzzled by PF Usage numbers reported on our SQL server. It is SQL
> Server 2000 (SP3a) running on Windows 2003 Enterprise Server with 12 GB of
> RAM. SQL Server is restricted to 10GB. There is only one page file 2046MB.
> When I open Task Manager PF Usage numbers are 10.3 GB. I am not sure how
> this number is calculated. According to help : It is 'The amount of paging
> file being used by the system.' Considering I have paging file 2GB big how
> come Task Manager shows 10.3 GB?
>
> Thanks you in advance,
> Igor
>
>
|||John,
There is only one Page File located on drive C.
Igor
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ABD53369-1AEC-4893-A353-58DE3D716359@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> Have you checked that the Page File is not also on other discs?
> What does performance monitor show for this?
> John
> "imarchenko" wrote:

PF numbers

Hello!
I am puzzled by PF Usage numbers reported on our SQL server. It is SQL
Server 2000 (SP3a) running on Windows 2003 Enterprise Server with 12 GB of
RAM. SQL Server is restricted to 10GB. There is only one page file 2046MB.
When I open Task Manager PF Usage numbers are 10.3 GB. I am not sure how
this number is calculated. According to help : It is 'The amount of paging
file being used by the system.' Considering I have paging file 2GB big how
come Task Manager shows 10.3 GB?
Thanks you in advance,
IgorHi
Have you checked that the Page File is not also on other discs?
What does performance monitor show for this?
John
"imarchenko" wrote:
> Hello!
> I am puzzled by PF Usage numbers reported on our SQL server. It is SQL
> Server 2000 (SP3a) running on Windows 2003 Enterprise Server with 12 GB of
> RAM. SQL Server is restricted to 10GB. There is only one page file 2046MB.
> When I open Task Manager PF Usage numbers are 10.3 GB. I am not sure how
> this number is calculated. According to help : It is 'The amount of paging
> file being used by the system.' Considering I have paging file 2GB big how
> come Task Manager shows 10.3 GB?
>
> Thanks you in advance,
> Igor
>
>|||John,
There is only one Page File located on drive C.
Igor
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ABD53369-1AEC-4893-A353-58DE3D716359@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> Have you checked that the Page File is not also on other discs?
> What does performance monitor show for this?
> John
> "imarchenko" wrote:
>> Hello!
>> I am puzzled by PF Usage numbers reported on our SQL server. It is SQL
>> Server 2000 (SP3a) running on Windows 2003 Enterprise Server with 12 GB
>> of
>> RAM. SQL Server is restricted to 10GB. There is only one page file
>> 2046MB.
>> When I open Task Manager PF Usage numbers are 10.3 GB. I am not sure how
>> this number is calculated. According to help : It is 'The amount of
>> paging
>> file being used by the system.' Considering I have paging file 2GB big
>> how
>> come Task Manager shows 10.3 GB?
>>
>> Thanks you in advance,
>> Igor
>>
>>

PF numbers

Hello!
I am puzzled by PF Usage numbers reported on our SQL server. It is SQL
Server 2000 (SP3a) running on Windows 2003 Enterprise Server with 12 GB of
RAM. SQL Server is restricted to 10GB. There is only one page file 2046MB.
When I open Task Manager PF Usage numbers are 10.3 GB. I am not sure how
this number is calculated. According to help : It is 'The amount of paging
file being used by the system.' Considering I have paging file 2GB big how
come Task Manager shows 10.3 GB?
Thanks you in advance,
IgorHi
Have you checked that the Page File is not also on other discs?
What does performance monitor show for this?
John
"imarchenko" wrote:

> Hello!
> I am puzzled by PF Usage numbers reported on our SQL server. It is SQL
> Server 2000 (SP3a) running on Windows 2003 Enterprise Server with 12 GB of
> RAM. SQL Server is restricted to 10GB. There is only one page file 2046MB.
> When I open Task Manager PF Usage numbers are 10.3 GB. I am not sure how
> this number is calculated. According to help : It is 'The amount of paging
> file being used by the system.' Considering I have paging file 2GB big how
> come Task Manager shows 10.3 GB?
>
> Thanks you in advance,
> Igor
>
>|||John,
There is only one Page File located on drive C.
Igor
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ABD53369-1AEC-4893-A353-58DE3D716359@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> Have you checked that the Page File is not also on other discs?
> What does performance monitor show for this?
> John
> "imarchenko" wrote:
>

Personal SQL Server 2000

Dear Anyone,
I am a member of Microsoft's ISV program. I have a server running Server
2000 and a laptop as my workstation. The server is running SQL Server 2000.
I want to install a desktop version of SQL Server on my laptop to do demos
of my projects.
Do I install from SQL Server Developer Edition or SQL Server 2000
Desktop Engine? Or from something I'm not aware of. Please advise.
Thank you.
James LattanzioYou can install SQL Server Personal Edition. It comes on a separate disk
with SQL Server Standard Edition and SQL Server Enterprise Edition, and is
explicitly licensed for doing demos of a product that requires SQL Server.
--
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"James Lattanzio" <europacg@.erols.com> wrote in message
news:403bb7f1$0$3079$61fed72c@.news.rcn.com...
> Dear Anyone,
> I am a member of Microsoft's ISV program. I have a server running
Server
> 2000 and a laptop as my workstation. The server is running SQL Server
2000.
> I want to install a desktop version of SQL Server on my laptop to do demos
> of my projects.
> Do I install from SQL Server Developer Edition or SQL Server 2000
> Desktop Engine? Or from something I'm not aware of. Please advise.
> Thank you.
> James Lattanzio
>|||The developer edition would work if you have it. If you just want to =demo your app, then MSDE (the desktop engine) is probably all you need. =Keep in mind that MSDE does not ship with any GUI management tools. You =will have to use osql.exe.
-- Keith
"James Lattanzio" <europacg@.erols.com> wrote in message =news:403bb7f1$0$3079$61fed72c@.news.rcn.com...
> Dear Anyone,
> > I am a member of Microsoft's ISV program. I have a server running =Server
> 2000 and a laptop as my workstation. The server is running SQL Server =2000.
> I want to install a desktop version of SQL Server on my laptop to do =demos
> of my projects.
> > Do I install from SQL Server Developer Edition or SQL Server 2000
> Desktop Engine? Or from something I'm not aware of. Please advise.
> > Thank you.
> > James Lattanzio
> >sql

Personal SQL Server 2000

Dear Anyone,
I am a member of Microsoft's ISV program. I have a server running Server
2000 and a laptop as my workstation. The server is running SQL Server 2000.
I want to install a desktop version of SQL Server on my laptop to do demos
of my projects.
Do I install from SQL Server Developer Edition or SQL Server 2000
Desktop Engine? Or from something I'm not aware of. Please advise.
Thank you.
James LattanzioYou can install SQL Server Personal Edition. It comes on a separate disk
with SQL Server Standard Edition and SQL Server Enterprise Edition, and is
explicitly licensed for doing demos of a product that requires SQL Server.
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"James Lattanzio" <europacg@.erols.com> wrote in message
news:403bb7f1$0$3079$61fed72c@.news.rcn.com...
> Dear Anyone,
> I am a member of Microsoft's ISV program. I have a server running
Server
> 2000 and a laptop as my workstation. The server is running SQL Server
2000.
> I want to install a desktop version of SQL Server on my laptop to do demos
> of my projects.
> Do I install from SQL Server Developer Edition or SQL Server 2000
> Desktop Engine? Or from something I'm not aware of. Please advise.
> Thank you.
> James Lattanzio
>|||The developer edition would work if you have it. If you just want to =
demo your app, then MSDE (the desktop engine) is probably all you need. =
Keep in mind that MSDE does not ship with any GUI management tools. You =
will have to use osql.exe.
--=20
Keith
"James Lattanzio" <europacg@.erols.com> wrote in message =
news:403bb7f1$0$3079$61fed72c@.news.rcn.com...
> Dear Anyone,
>=20
> I am a member of Microsoft's ISV program. I have a server running =
Server
> 2000 and a laptop as my workstation. The server is running SQL Server =
2000.
> I want to install a desktop version of SQL Server on my laptop to do =
demos
> of my projects.
>=20
> Do I install from SQL Server Developer Edition or SQL Server 2000
> Desktop Engine? Or from something I'm not aware of. Please advise.
>=20
> Thank you.
>=20
> James Lattanzio
>=20
>

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Personal Edition

I am using the SQL Server Personal edition in remote offices with 2 or 3
clients each to connect to our central office server running SQL Server
Standard Edition. I want to use the personal edition because when I am
using replication between each client and main office and the EM will be
useful.
I am having connection problems when I use the personal edition but no
connection problems with the same setup using a developer edition. I
have read in places there are conection issues with the personal edition
but have not found many solutions or even details on the issues. It is
my understanding that the personal edition should work for this setup
and should communicate with Central servers and provide replication
capabilities.
My snapshot works fine but any transactions or Merge replication will
not replicate,I get a can not connect error. Again, the transactions
replicate when I use the developer edition on my client just not the
personal edition.
Can the personal edition communicate with standard edition? How does the
personal edition setup differ in order to work? Where can I find more
information on how to correct the problems (if any)? Are there any other
options (if this is not possible) without buying a stnd edition for each
office?
thanks,
eric.
Eric,
Personal Edition includes a concurrent workload governor that limits its
scalability; performance degrades when more than five Transact-SQL batches
are executed concurrently, which may be the cause of your issues. This is
really to prevent people using it for production systems, and upgrading to
workgroup or standard would solve your issues if this is the case.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)

Persistent mirroring witness disconnected probem on mirror

Hi,
I'm running a syncornized mirroring setup using a witness on our LAN.
Since we don't use a domain controller, we use certificates for outbound and
inbound mirroring connections.
We're using sql server 2005 SP1 standard edititon on all machines.
The principal and mirror have only the partner role
The witness has only the witness role
After exeucting 'alter database set witness' on server1, the mirror monitor
shows that server1, the pricnipal, is connected to the witness, but server2,
the mirror, is disconnected from the witness.
When performing a manual failover (alter databsase set partner failover),
server2, now the principal, is still disconnected from the witness.
I've eliminated the possibility that server2 and the witness have a
connection problem, by dropping the witness from server1 when server1 was the
principal, and adding it to server2, when server2 was the principal. Then,
server1 is the one with the disconnected problem.
When executing the set witness command on a mirror, I get an error that it
can only be done on the principal machine.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Ronen
The error message is exactly correct. You run an alter database set partner
on both the principal and the mirror. You only run the alter database set
witness on the principal. That command option is never run against the
mirror. It looks like you have either a certificate issue or you have a
connectivity problem. If the principal and mirror are server1 and server2,
what is the name of the witness?
Mike Hotek
MHS Enterprises, Inc
http://www.mssqlserver.com
"Ronen" <Ronen@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C3C6E7E5-AA18-4A24-BC34-3C378D05A41D@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm running a syncornized mirroring setup using a witness on our LAN.
> Since we don't use a domain controller, we use certificates for outbound
> and
> inbound mirroring connections.
> We're using sql server 2005 SP1 standard edititon on all machines.
> The principal and mirror have only the partner role
> The witness has only the witness role
> After exeucting 'alter database set witness' on server1, the mirror
> monitor
> shows that server1, the pricnipal, is connected to the witness, but
> server2,
> the mirror, is disconnected from the witness.
> When performing a manual failover (alter databsase set partner failover),
> server2, now the principal, is still disconnected from the witness.
> I've eliminated the possibility that server2 and the witness have a
> connection problem, by dropping the witness from server1 when server1 was
> the
> principal, and adding it to server2, when server2 was the principal. Then,
> server1 is the one with the disconnected problem.
> When executing the set witness command on a mirror, I get an error that it
> can only be done on the principal machine.
> Any ideas?
> Thanks,
> Ronen
>
sql

Monday, March 26, 2012

Permitted Host Problem

I have Reporting Service up and running and able to send email of the
reports. I have a request from a client to set their system up so that
reports are email to approved recipients. I have the DefaultHost
(called DomainA) to the local SMTP domain, and have put in a domain in
the PermittedHost (called DomainB), in the config file. When I send a
report the the permitted DomainB, works fine. When I send same report
to DomainC, (which is not a permitted host) and that report gets
delivered also. I would think that since it was not a permitted host
the report should have not been sent. Am I missing a configuration? If
there were multiple hosts to permit, would they be separated with a
comma(,) or semicolon (;)?
The SMTP server has been setup to relay to a Smart Host for delivery.
Below is my email configuration. I show the current setup and I also
have show a 2nd setup that I have tried, but get the same results.
<Extension Name="Report Server Email"
Type="Microsoft.ReportingServices.EmailDeliveryProvider.EmailProvider,ReportingServicesEmailDeliveryProvider">
<MaxRetries>3</MaxRetries>
<SecondsBeforeRetry>900</SecondsBeforeRetry>
<Configuration>
<RSEmailDPConfiguration>
<SMTPServer>Relay Server</SMTPServer> Current Setup
#** <SMTPServer>localhost</SMTPServer> Have also tried Setup #2
<SMTPServerPort></SMTPServerPort>
<SMTPAccountName></SMTPAccountName>
<SMTPConnectionTimeout></SMTPConnectionTimeout>
<SMTPServerPickupDirectory></SMTPServerPickupDirectory> Current Setup
#**
<SMTPServerPickupDirectory>c:\inetpub\mailroot\Pickup</SMTPServerPickupDirectory>
Have also tried Setup #2
<SMTPUseSSL></SMTPUseSSL>
<SendUsing></SendUsing> Current Setup
#** <SendUsing>1</SendUsing> Have also tried Setup #2
<SMTPAuthenticate></SMTPAuthenticate>
<From>Server@.DomainA.com</From>
<EmbeddedRenderFormats>
<RenderingExtension>MHTML</RenderingExtension>
</EmbeddedRenderFormats>
<PrivilegedUserRenderFormats></PrivilegedUserRenderFormats>
<ExcludedRenderFormats>
<RenderingExtension>HTMLOWC</RenderingExtension>
<RenderingExtension>NULL</RenderingExtension>
</ExcludedRenderFormats>
<SendEmailToUserAlias>True</SendEmailToUserAlias>
<DefaultHostName>DomainA</DefaultHostName>
<PermittedHosts>DomainB.com</PermittedHosts>
</RSEmailDPConfiguration>
</Configuration>
Server Information (This is a development server, so everything is
installed):
W2K3 w/IIS and SMTP
SQL 2000 SP3a
SQL Reporting SP2
If you need more information, please let me know.
Thanks in Advance for any help,
Zing1atuWe are investigating whether PermittedHost is still working. If it is a bug
and this is essential functionality for you, you will have to request a
hotfix through product support.
--
Brian Welcker
Group Program Manager
Microsoft SQL Server
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Zing1atU" <gsnyder5@.csc.com> wrote in message
news:1115734700.870300.288860@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I have Reporting Service up and running and able to send email of the
> reports. I have a request from a client to set their system up so that
> reports are email to approved recipients. I have the DefaultHost
> (called DomainA) to the local SMTP domain, and have put in a domain in
> the PermittedHost (called DomainB), in the config file. When I send a
> report the the permitted DomainB, works fine. When I send same report
> to DomainC, (which is not a permitted host) and that report gets
> delivered also. I would think that since it was not a permitted host
> the report should have not been sent. Am I missing a configuration? If
> there were multiple hosts to permit, would they be separated with a
> comma(,) or semicolon (;)?
> The SMTP server has been setup to relay to a Smart Host for delivery.
> Below is my email configuration. I show the current setup and I also
> have show a 2nd setup that I have tried, but get the same results.
> <Extension Name="Report Server Email"
> Type="Microsoft.ReportingServices.EmailDeliveryProvider.EmailProvider,ReportingServicesEmailDeliveryProvider">
> <MaxRetries>3</MaxRetries>
> <SecondsBeforeRetry>900</SecondsBeforeRetry>
> <Configuration>
> <RSEmailDPConfiguration>
> <SMTPServer>Relay Server</SMTPServer> Current Setup
> #** <SMTPServer>localhost</SMTPServer> Have also tried Setup #2
> <SMTPServerPort></SMTPServerPort>
> <SMTPAccountName></SMTPAccountName>
> <SMTPConnectionTimeout></SMTPConnectionTimeout>
> <SMTPServerPickupDirectory></SMTPServerPickupDirectory> Current Setup
> #**
> <SMTPServerPickupDirectory>c:\inetpub\mailroot\Pickup</SMTPServerPickupDirectory>
> Have also tried Setup #2
> <SMTPUseSSL></SMTPUseSSL>
> <SendUsing></SendUsing> Current Setup
> #** <SendUsing>1</SendUsing> Have also tried Setup #2
> <SMTPAuthenticate></SMTPAuthenticate>
> <From>Server@.DomainA.com</From>
> <EmbeddedRenderFormats>
> <RenderingExtension>MHTML</RenderingExtension>
> </EmbeddedRenderFormats>
> <PrivilegedUserRenderFormats></PrivilegedUserRenderFormats>
> <ExcludedRenderFormats>
> <RenderingExtension>HTMLOWC</RenderingExtension>
> <RenderingExtension>NULL</RenderingExtension>
> </ExcludedRenderFormats>
> <SendEmailToUserAlias>True</SendEmailToUserAlias>
> <DefaultHostName>DomainA</DefaultHostName>
> <PermittedHosts>DomainB.com</PermittedHosts>
> </RSEmailDPConfiguration>
> </Configuration>
> Server Information (This is a development server, so everything is
> installed):
> W2K3 w/IIS and SMTP
> SQL 2000 SP3a
> SQL Reporting SP2
> If you need more information, please let me know.
> Thanks in Advance for any help,
> Zing1atu
>|||Stayed on top of this with Microsoft. Results were that you need to add
a little more to the Permitted Host section to make it work. The
following is what needed to be added:
<SendEmailToUserAlias>False</SendEmailToUserAlias>
<PermittedHosts>
<HostName>domain.com</HostName>
</PermittedHosts>
After making these changes, was successfully able to send to the host
name allowed and any other host name brought up an error, that the
named host was not permitted.
Hopefully, this will be documented a little better in the next release
of On-line documentation.

Permissions within groups

Running SQL Server 2000 under Windows 2003 server. All
updates and service packs applied. Using Windows
Authentication via group membership. No individual users
are defined in SQL Server. Some users can update tables,
while other users in the same group cannot (permission
denied).
I'm baffled...These people are probably members of another group that has been denied
those rights. Remember that permissions are cumulative except that deny
trumps...
"Jay Varner" <dimsjay@.dims-vote.com> wrote in message
news:e55901c3f0e8$da00f2c0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Running SQL Server 2000 under Windows 2003 server. All
> updates and service packs applied. Using Windows
> Authentication via group membership. No individual users
> are defined in SQL Server. Some users can update tables,
> while other users in the same group cannot (permission
> denied).
> I'm baffled...|||Try comparing users that can update vs those that can't using gpresult.
321709 HOW TO: Use the Group Policy Results Tool in Windows 2000
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=321709
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||I appreciate your quick reply, Don, but am not sure I expressed the
problem sufficiently.
Using Active Directory in W2K3 server, we defined specific user groups
for each of three domains that need to access the database. Each user
appears in only one group. All of these groups have been added to SQL
Server, and all have the same rights to the database(s). The problem
seems to occur for several people in each group, and does not seem to be
related to any permissions they are allowed on the domain. For
instance, in one of the groups, one user is a standard DOMAIN USER in
Windows, and he is able to perform updates to any of the tables in the
database; another user is a DOMAIN ADMIN who belongs to the same group,
but he is denied access to perform updates.
If we assign the group SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR priveleges on the database,
it seems to resolve the problem, but thats not an acceptable resolution
for this large office.
If we assign each individual user (rather than the groups) to SQL, the
problem goes away. Again, this is a large office, and they would like
to avoid the additional overhead of having to add each new user to both
Windows and SQL Server.
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.examnotes.net ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Permissions problem running xp_sendmail

SQL Server 2000 SP3 on Win2k Server SP3
Using code: EXEC master..xp_sendmail @.recipients=my_address_goes_here, @.mess
age='',
@.query='SELECT foo FROM bar', @.subject='Subject',
@.attachments='qry.csv',
@.attach_results='TRUE',
@.width=500,@.separator=','
Without @.attachments and @.attach_results the query runs and sends a mail con
taining data. However, it is a user requirement that I send the file as an a
ttached .csv so it will load directly into Excel. With @.attach_results set t
o TRUE and no @.attachments,
the code fails with xp_sendmail: failed with operating system error 267. I'v
e logged in as the SQL Server service account and set its TEMP and TMP envir
onment variables to a folder over which everyone has full control. When I us
e @.attachments, whether I
specify a path or not I get xp_sendmail: failed with operating system error
5.
This looks like a permissions problem, and I've seen several similar posting
s but without a solution. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Thanks
Scott DoughtyShould also mention the server is clustered

Permissions problem running xp_sendmail

SQL Server 2000 SP3 on Win2k Server SP
Using code: EXEC master..xp_sendmail @.recipients=my_address_goes_here, @.message=''
@.query='SELECT foo FROM bar', @.subject='Subject'
@.attachments='qry.csv'
@.attach_results='TRUE'
@.width=500,@.separator=',
Without @.attachments and @.attach_results the query runs and sends a mail containing data. However, it is a user requirement that I send the file as an attached .csv so it will load directly into Excel. With @.attach_results set to TRUE and no @.attachments, the code fails with xp_sendmail: failed with operating system error 267. I've logged in as the SQL Server service account and set its TEMP and TMP environment variables to a folder over which everyone has full control. When I use @.attachments, whether I specify a path or not I get xp_sendmail: failed with operating system error 5
This looks like a permissions problem, and I've seen several similar postings but without a solution. Can anyone point me in the right direction
Thank
Scott DoughtShould also mention the server is clustered

permissions not scripting in 2000

We have several databases that were migrated to SQL2000 from 7.0 on the same
server running Windows 2000 Server. Only a couple of the databases are having
a problem that when we script out the stored procedures or any object for
that matter (with the script permissions box selected) the object or SP is
scripted out but the GRANT permissions portion of the script is omitted. We
also cannot see the permissions for the object in the GUI of Enterprise
Manager. The other databases work fine on the same server. Is it a switch for
this particular database or something? Any help on this matter would be
greatly appreciated.Did you check "Script object-level permissions" on the Options tab.
Also, you can generate scripts via Query Analyzer. It has the options for
scripting permissions, too.
-oj
"Dennis" <Dennis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:675C1FC1-62D7-43DB-8E09-4FBC3DBA81F8@.microsoft.com...
> We have several databases that were migrated to SQL2000 from 7.0 on the
> same
> server running Windows 2000 Server. Only a couple of the databases are
> having
> a problem that when we script out the stored procedures or any object for
> that matter (with the script permissions box selected) the object or SP is
> scripted out but the GRANT permissions portion of the script is omitted.
> We
> also cannot see the permissions for the object in the GUI of Enterprise
> Manager. The other databases work fine on the same server. Is it a switch
> for
> this particular database or something? Any help on this matter would be
> greatly appreciated.|||First of all thanks for the response. Yes, the "Script object-level
permissions" box is checked. It's weird because it seems to work on the other
databases that are on the same instance of SQLServer but not on just this
one. The object level permissions do not show up if you pull up the object in
the EM GUI either. I have ben told that you can see the permissions in the
syspermissions table they just don't appear in the GUI or when scripted. Any
help is appreciated.
"oj" wrote:
> Did you check "Script object-level permissions" on the Options tab.
> Also, you can generate scripts via Query Analyzer. It has the options for
> scripting permissions, too.
>
> --
> -oj
>
> "Dennis" <Dennis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:675C1FC1-62D7-43DB-8E09-4FBC3DBA81F8@.microsoft.com...
> > We have several databases that were migrated to SQL2000 from 7.0 on the
> > same
> > server running Windows 2000 Server. Only a couple of the databases are
> > having
> > a problem that when we script out the stored procedures or any object for
> > that matter (with the script permissions box selected) the object or SP is
> > scripted out but the GRANT permissions portion of the script is omitted.
> > We
> > also cannot see the permissions for the object in the GUI of Enterprise
> > Manager. The other databases work fine on the same server. Is it a switch
> > for
> > this particular database or something? Any help on this matter would be
> > greatly appreciated.
>
>|||Sorry for the late reply...been out of town for the last few weeks.
Anyway, this sounds like a problem with the GUI (though, I'm unable to repro
it at my end). If this is important to you, you can open a case with MS
Support. They won't charge you if this is indeed a bug.
--
-oj
"Dennis" <Dennis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:90927829-B83C-4A24-BDF0-E87B276914B8@.microsoft.com...
> First of all thanks for the response. Yes, the "Script object-level
> permissions" box is checked. It's weird because it seems to work on the
> other
> databases that are on the same instance of SQLServer but not on just this
> one. The object level permissions do not show up if you pull up the object
> in
> the EM GUI either. I have ben told that you can see the permissions in the
> syspermissions table they just don't appear in the GUI or when scripted.
> Any
> help is appreciated.
> "oj" wrote:
>> Did you check "Script object-level permissions" on the Options tab.
>> Also, you can generate scripts via Query Analyzer. It has the options for
>> scripting permissions, too.
>>
>> --
>> -oj
>>
>> "Dennis" <Dennis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:675C1FC1-62D7-43DB-8E09-4FBC3DBA81F8@.microsoft.com...
>> > We have several databases that were migrated to SQL2000 from 7.0 on the
>> > same
>> > server running Windows 2000 Server. Only a couple of the databases are
>> > having
>> > a problem that when we script out the stored procedures or any object
>> > for
>> > that matter (with the script permissions box selected) the object or SP
>> > is
>> > scripted out but the GRANT permissions portion of the script is
>> > omitted.
>> > We
>> > also cannot see the permissions for the object in the GUI of Enterprise
>> > Manager. The other databases work fine on the same server. Is it a
>> > switch
>> > for
>> > this particular database or something? Any help on this matter would be
>> > greatly appreciated.
>>sql

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

permissions issue?

I am having a problem running this statement:
GRANT VIEW DEFINITION ON OBJECT::MyDatabase.MyStoredProcedure TO MyUser
I get this error:
Msg 15151, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Cannot find the object 'MyStoredProcedure', because it does not exist
or you do not have permission.
MyStoredProcedure definitely DOES exist in the database, and I'm
running the statement as a sysadmin user. I even tried "sa" just in
case. But no dice. This seems like a very straightforward matter.
If I use the interface, not command line, I am able to grant
permissions easily. But there's something it doesn't like about my
above statement. Any ideas appreciated!
Thanks> If I use the interface, not command line, I am able to grant
> permissions easily.
Script the TSQL command submitted by the GUI and you will see the difference. Do you really have a
schema named MyDatabase in your database?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
<tootsuite@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:1158610855.925197.188970@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I am having a problem running this statement:
> GRANT VIEW DEFINITION ON OBJECT::MyDatabase.MyStoredProcedure TO MyUser
> I get this error:
> Msg 15151, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Cannot find the object 'MyStoredProcedure', because it does not exist
> or you do not have permission.
> MyStoredProcedure definitely DOES exist in the database, and I'm
> running the statement as a sysadmin user. I even tried "sa" just in
> case. But no dice. This seems like a very straightforward matter.
> If I use the interface, not command line, I am able to grant
> permissions easily. But there's something it doesn't like about my
> above statement. Any ideas appreciated!
> Thanks
>|||Here's the syntax, from Books Online:
GRANT <permission> ON
[ OBJECT :: ][ schema_name ]. object_name TO <database_principal>
So in your example:
schema_name = MyDatabase
object_name = MyStoredProcedure
database_principal = MyUser
Note that the name of the database should not be included, only the schema
name within the database.
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
<tootsuite@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158610855.925197.188970@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I am having a problem running this statement:
> GRANT VIEW DEFINITION ON OBJECT::MyDatabase.MyStoredProcedure TO MyUser
> I get this error:
> Msg 15151, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Cannot find the object 'MyStoredProcedure', because it does not exist
> or you do not have permission.
> MyStoredProcedure definitely DOES exist in the database, and I'm
> running the statement as a sysadmin user. I even tried "sa" just in
> case. But no dice. This seems like a very straightforward matter.
> If I use the interface, not command line, I am able to grant
> permissions easily. But there's something it doesn't like about my
> above statement. Any ideas appreciated!
> Thanks
>|||> Script the TSQL command submitted by the GUI and you will see the difference. Do you really have a
> schema named MyDatabase in your database?
No, of course not. But I don't like posting private company information
on the net :-)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> <tootsuite@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:1158610855.925197.188970@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >I am having a problem running this statement:
> >
> > GRANT VIEW DEFINITION ON OBJECT::MyDatabase.MyStoredProcedure TO MyUser
> >
> > I get this error:
> >
> > Msg 15151, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> > Cannot find the object 'MyStoredProcedure', because it does not exist
> > or you do not have permission.
> >
> > MyStoredProcedure definitely DOES exist in the database, and I'm
> > running the statement as a sysadmin user. I even tried "sa" just in
> > case. But no dice. This seems like a very straightforward matter.
> >
> > If I use the interface, not command line, I am able to grant
> > permissions easily. But there's something it doesn't like about my
> > above statement. Any ideas appreciated!
> >
> > Thanks
> >|||Removing the db name worked, thanks
Kalen Delaney wrote:
> Here's the syntax, from Books Online:
> GRANT <permission> ON
> [ OBJECT :: ][ schema_name ]. object_name TO <database_principal>
> So in your example:
> schema_name = MyDatabase
> object_name = MyStoredProcedure
> database_principal = MyUser
> Note that the name of the database should not be included, only the schema
> name within the database.
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>
> <tootsuite@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1158610855.925197.188970@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >I am having a problem running this statement:
> >
> > GRANT VIEW DEFINITION ON OBJECT::MyDatabase.MyStoredProcedure TO MyUser
> >
> > I get this error:
> >
> > Msg 15151, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> > Cannot find the object 'MyStoredProcedure', because it does not exist
> > or you do not have permission.
> >
> > MyStoredProcedure definitely DOES exist in the database, and I'm
> > running the statement as a sysadmin user. I even tried "sa" just in
> > case. But no dice. This seems like a very straightforward matter.
> >
> > If I use the interface, not command line, I am able to grant
> > permissions easily. But there's something it doesn't like about my
> > above statement. Any ideas appreciated!
> >
> > Thanks
> >|||I think Tibor was actually asking the same question I was. Is whatever you
used instead of MyDatabase a database name or a schema name?
Our guess is that you were confusing the two. If you had used the schema
name, it would have worked.
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
<tootsuite@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158614641.882490.40330@.m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> Script the TSQL command submitted by the GUI and you will see the
>> difference. Do you really have a
>> schema named MyDatabase in your database?
> No, of course not. But I don't like posting private company information
> on the net :-)
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> <tootsuite@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1158610855.925197.188970@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >I am having a problem running this statement:
>> >
>> > GRANT VIEW DEFINITION ON OBJECT::MyDatabase.MyStoredProcedure TO MyUser
>> >
>> > I get this error:
>> >
>> > Msg 15151, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>> > Cannot find the object 'MyStoredProcedure', because it does not exist
>> > or you do not have permission.
>> >
>> > MyStoredProcedure definitely DOES exist in the database, and I'm
>> > running the statement as a sysadmin user. I even tried "sa" just in
>> > case. But no dice. This seems like a very straightforward matter.
>> >
>> > If I use the interface, not command line, I am able to grant
>> > permissions easily. But there's something it doesn't like about my
>> > above statement. Any ideas appreciated!
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>|||>I think Tibor was actually asking the same question I was.
Indeed. Thanks for clarifying Kalen. :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:umdKy632GHA.3464@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>I think Tibor was actually asking the same question I was. Is whatever you used instead of
>MyDatabase a database name or a schema name?
> Our guess is that you were confusing the two. If you had used the schema name, it would have
> worked.
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>
> <tootsuite@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:1158614641.882490.40330@.m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Script the TSQL command submitted by the GUI and you will see the difference. Do you really have
>> a
>> schema named MyDatabase in your database?
>> No, of course not. But I don't like posting private company information
>> on the net :-)
>>
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> <tootsuite@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1158610855.925197.188970@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >I am having a problem running this statement:
>> >
>> > GRANT VIEW DEFINITION ON OBJECT::MyDatabase.MyStoredProcedure TO MyUser
>> >
>> > I get this error:
>> >
>> > Msg 15151, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>> > Cannot find the object 'MyStoredProcedure', because it does not exist
>> > or you do not have permission.
>> >
>> > MyStoredProcedure definitely DOES exist in the database, and I'm
>> > running the statement as a sysadmin user. I even tried "sa" just in
>> > case. But no dice. This seems like a very straightforward matter.
>> >
>> > If I use the interface, not command line, I am able to grant
>> > permissions easily. But there's something it doesn't like about my
>> > above statement. Any ideas appreciated!
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>|||And it seems from his answer to me that his "MyDatabase" was a database
name, not a schema name.
As trainers, I can see we have our work cut out for us getting people to
understand this new concept!
--
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:OTyVtdA3GHA.1252@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >I think Tibor was actually asking the same question I was.
> Indeed. Thanks for clarifying Kalen. :-)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:umdKy632GHA.3464@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>I think Tibor was actually asking the same question I was. Is whatever you
>>used instead of MyDatabase a database name or a schema name?
>> Our guess is that you were confusing the two. If you had used the schema
>> name, it would have worked.
>> --
>> HTH
>> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>>
>> <tootsuite@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1158614641.882490.40330@.m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Script the TSQL command submitted by the GUI and you will see the
>> difference. Do you really have a
>> schema named MyDatabase in your database?
>> No, of course not. But I don't like posting private company information
>> on the net :-)
>>
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> <tootsuite@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1158610855.925197.188970@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >I am having a problem running this statement:
>> >
>> > GRANT VIEW DEFINITION ON OBJECT::MyDatabase.MyStoredProcedure TO
>> > MyUser
>> >
>> > I get this error:
>> >
>> > Msg 15151, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
>> > Cannot find the object 'MyStoredProcedure', because it does not exist
>> > or you do not have permission.
>> >
>> > MyStoredProcedure definitely DOES exist in the database, and I'm
>> > running the statement as a sysadmin user. I even tried "sa" just in
>> > case. But no dice. This seems like a very straightforward matter.
>> >
>> > If I use the interface, not command line, I am able to grant
>> > permissions easily. But there's something it doesn't like about my
>> > above statement. Any ideas appreciated!
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>>
>|||On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:55:10 -0700, "Kalen Delaney"
<replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote:
>As trainers, I can see we have our work cut out for us getting people to
>understand this new concept!
Think of it as job security. 8-)
Roy

Permissions Issue Not Allowing Job Run

Hi,
I'm having a problem running jobs. I can not get my test
backup job to work. The job history indicates that
Servername\Administrator can't be determined to have
server access. I recently changed from Windows
Authentication to SQL and Windows.
I'm going through the SQL Server 2000 Administration
Training Kit. I believe that the account that should have
been used is Domainname\Administrator. Also, when I setup
my server initially, which is a domain controller, I used
SelfPacedSQL.local rather than SelfPacedSQL.msft as
instructed, because I could get the .msft domain suffix.
I'm new to Active Directory. Please help.You may be running into a problem with Domain local groups.
825042 FIX: SQL Server Jobs That Are Owned by Non-sysadmin Users May Not
Start
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=825042
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Permission Denied Error

Friday, March 30, 2012

pfpagealloc error

pfpagealloc error

PF numbers

PF numbers

PF numbers

Personal SQL Server 2000

Personal SQL Server 2000

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Personal Edition

Persistent mirroring witness disconnected probem on mirror

Monday, March 26, 2012

Permitted Host Problem

Permissions within groups

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Permissions problem running xp_sendmail

Permissions problem running xp_sendmail

permissions not scripting in 2000

permissions not scripting in 2000

permissions not scripting in 2000

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

permissions issue?

permissions issue?

permissions issue?

Permissions Issue Not Allowing Job Run

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me