new stored procedures created as type system instead of user

I am running SQL 2000 SP4. When I create a new stored procedure it is
being created as type system instead of user. How can I make it so
every new sp I create is type user instead of system? Thanks in
advance.Hi
"ginarunco@.hotmail.com" wrote:

> I am running SQL 2000 SP4. When I create a new stored procedure it is
> being created as type system instead of user. How can I make it so
> every new sp I create is type user instead of system? Thanks in
> advance.
>
Run DBCC TRACESTATUS ( 1717 )
If the flag is on, run
EXEC sp_MS_upd_sysobj_category 2
Check the SQL Server Startup parameters to make sure it doesn't turn this
trace flag on at startup.
John

new stored procedures created as type system instead of user

I am running SQL 2000 SP4. When I create a new stored procedure it is
being created as type system instead of user. How can I make it so
every new sp I create is type user instead of system? Thanks in
advance.
Hi
"ginarunco@.hotmail.com" wrote:

> I am running SQL 2000 SP4. When I create a new stored procedure it is
> being created as type system instead of user. How can I make it so
> every new sp I create is type user instead of system? Thanks in
> advance.
>
Run DBCC TRACESTATUS ( 1717 )
If the flag is on, run
EXEC sp_MS_upd_sysobj_category 2
Check the SQL Server Startup parameters to make sure it doesn't turn this
trace flag on at startup.
John
sql

new stored procedures created as type system instead of user

I am running SQL 2000 SP4. When I create a new stored procedure it is
being created as type system instead of user. How can I make it so
every new sp I create is type user instead of system? Thanks in
advance.Hi
"ginarunco@.hotmail.com" wrote:
> I am running SQL 2000 SP4. When I create a new stored procedure it is
> being created as type system instead of user. How can I make it so
> every new sp I create is type user instead of system? Thanks in
> advance.
>
Run DBCC TRACESTATUS ( 1717 )
If the flag is on, run
EXEC sp_MS_upd_sysobj_category 2
Check the SQL Server Startup parameters to make sure it doesn't turn this
trace flag on at startup.
John

New SQL Server 2000 worm?

Hi all.

My SQL Server 2000 SP4 installation running on Windows 2003 server (SP1, all patches current) has been infected TWICE by something that Sophos can't detect.

The symptoms are that an account called SQLsys is created on the machine and is made an administrator.

A service called "ApptoService spoolsrv" is created. An executable called syss.exe is also created in a few places. After infection the machine immediately starts attacking other computers on the network.

I had Windows Firewall running, with ports open for SQL server and Remote Desktop.

I ran the MBSA, it didn't find anything open.

I even ran the beta MS web tool for scanning, didn't detect any trojans.

I'm going to be restoring the machine (AGAIN), but I wish I knew what security hole is being found! Any ideas?
Please try changing your SA account password. Try a complicated password that has numbers, letters, and symbols in it. Also, do not allow your sql server to have inbound access to the internet. At the very least block port 1433 on your firewall.|||

Have you noticed this issue again after setting a strong SA password?

Thanks
Laurentiu

|||Try using Windows Defender beta which is a good one to catchup such trojans & spyware. Also check any spurious activity on SQL server by referring to data & log file usage with an audit trial.sql

new sql server

Our multiinstance multidatabase box (ML 350 4 GB RAM W2003 SE and SQL2000 SE
SP4) will be replaces and a research is going for new sql server. Optionally
wed like to have high avaiability of all instances and databases. Any advice
for hw , database sw (to stay with mssql2000 or to go for 2005) , ha solution
, 32 or 64 architecture and etc. is appreciatedIn my opinion you should start your research by focusing only on the future:
SQL Server 2005 64-bit (of couse including 64-bit hardware and Windows).
Regarding High availability look in BOL for Failover Clustering and Database
Mirroring and see which one is better for your specific implementation.
Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
Database Administrator
"Eli Milkova" wrote:
> Our multiinstance multidatabase box (ML 350 4 GB RAM W2003 SE and SQL2000 SE
> SP4) will be replaces and a research is going for new sql server. Optionally
> wed like to have high avaiability of all instances and databases. Any advice
> for hw , database sw (to stay with mssql2000 or to go for 2005) , ha solution
> , 32 or 64 architecture and etc. is appreciated|||Currently we have 30+ databases all shape and size and I doubt they all be
sertified for 64 bit SQL SERVER. I think its not so simple as just use copy
database wizard, right?
"Ben Nevarez" wrote:
> In my opinion you should start your research by focusing only on the future:
> SQL Server 2005 64-bit (of couse including 64-bit hardware and Windows).
> Regarding High availability look in BOL for Failover Clustering and Database
> Mirroring and see which one is better for your specific implementation.
> Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
> Database Administrator
>
> "Eli Milkova" wrote:
> > Our multiinstance multidatabase box (ML 350 4 GB RAM W2003 SE and SQL2000 SE
> > SP4) will be replaces and a research is going for new sql server. Optionally
> > wed like to have high avaiability of all instances and databases. Any advice
> > for hw , database sw (to stay with mssql2000 or to go for 2005) , ha solution
> > , 32 or 64 architecture and etc. is appreciated|||You would need to ask your application vendor if SQL Server 2005 is
supported (it does not matter if it is 32-bit or 64-bit). Then you can create
a test environment where you can start testing those applications. Because
some vendors are going to take a long time to move to SQL Server 2005, at
least in my case, I think I will be running both SQL Server 2000 and 2005 for
a long time.
Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
Database Administrator
"Eli Milkova" wrote:
> Currently we have 30+ databases all shape and size and I doubt they all be
> sertified for 64 bit SQL SERVER. I think its not so simple as just use copy
> database wizard, right?
> "Ben Nevarez" wrote:
> >
> > In my opinion you should start your research by focusing only on the future:
> > SQL Server 2005 64-bit (of couse including 64-bit hardware and Windows).
> >
> > Regarding High availability look in BOL for Failover Clustering and Database
> > Mirroring and see which one is better for your specific implementation.
> >
> > Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
> > Database Administrator
> >
> >
> > "Eli Milkova" wrote:
> >
> > > Our multiinstance multidatabase box (ML 350 4 GB RAM W2003 SE and SQL2000 SE
> > > SP4) will be replaces and a research is going for new sql server. Optionally
> > > wed like to have high avaiability of all instances and databases. Any advice
> > > for hw , database sw (to stay with mssql2000 or to go for 2005) , ha solution
> > > , 32 or 64 architecture and etc. is appreciated|||With only 30 databases, testing should not be an unreasonable process. You
can use Developer Edition to build a test platform and see if the your
applications are SQL 2005 compliant. Worst case, you may need to put some
databases in 8.0 compatibality mode. You don't need to test for 64-bit
compatibility, since all editions should perform identically. Also, all
editions are on-disk compatible and interchangable.
As for the upgrade process, yes it is almost as easy as the copy database
wizard. I prefer backup/restore since that leaves the original system
intact. Note that you can backup from a SQL 2000 system and restore to a
SQL 2005 server, but you cannot go the in the other direction. The only
complex part is matching up the logins and transferring the scheduled jobs.
Again, decent testing should reveal most of these problems.
There are numerous licensing and performance advantages to using SQL 2005,
especially on the AMD64/EMT64 platform. I would start with a conversion
plan and an estimated cluster solution and see if management agrees.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FD47031D-49E3-4031-8C14-C685F6AA5277@.microsoft.com...
> Currently we have 30+ databases all shape and size and I doubt they all be
> sertified for 64 bit SQL SERVER. I think its not so simple as just use
> copy
> database wizard, right?
> "Ben Nevarez" wrote:
>> In my opinion you should start your research by focusing only on the
>> future:
>> SQL Server 2005 64-bit (of couse including 64-bit hardware and Windows).
>> Regarding High availability look in BOL for Failover Clustering and
>> Database
>> Mirroring and see which one is better for your specific implementation.
>> Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
>> Database Administrator
>>
>> "Eli Milkova" wrote:
>> > Our multiinstance multidatabase box (ML 350 4 GB RAM W2003 SE and
>> > SQL2000 SE
>> > SP4) will be replaces and a research is going for new sql server.
>> > Optionally
>> > wed like to have high avaiability of all instances and databases. Any
>> > advice
>> > for hw , database sw (to stay with mssql2000 or to go for 2005) , ha
>> > solution
>> > , 32 or 64 architecture and etc. is appreciated|||msql cluster environment requires expensive cluster hardware and does not
protect on db level. Since we have two DCs I find data mirroring with sql
server 2005 32/64b very attractive but I wonder how mirror will perform with
few instances and dozen databases in each instance.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> With only 30 databases, testing should not be an unreasonable process. You
> can use Developer Edition to build a test platform and see if the your
> applications are SQL 2005 compliant. Worst case, you may need to put some
> databases in 8.0 compatibality mode. You don't need to test for 64-bit
> compatibility, since all editions should perform identically. Also, all
> editions are on-disk compatible and interchangable.
> As for the upgrade process, yes it is almost as easy as the copy database
> wizard. I prefer backup/restore since that leaves the original system
> intact. Note that you can backup from a SQL 2000 system and restore to a
> SQL 2005 server, but you cannot go the in the other direction. The only
> complex part is matching up the logins and transferring the scheduled jobs.
> Again, decent testing should reveal most of these problems.
> There are numerous licensing and performance advantages to using SQL 2005,
> especially on the AMD64/EMT64 platform. I would start with a conversion
> plan and an estimated cluster solution and see if management agrees.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FD47031D-49E3-4031-8C14-C685F6AA5277@.microsoft.com...
> > Currently we have 30+ databases all shape and size and I doubt they all be
> > sertified for 64 bit SQL SERVER. I think its not so simple as just use
> > copy
> > database wizard, right?
> >
> > "Ben Nevarez" wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> In my opinion you should start your research by focusing only on the
> >> future:
> >> SQL Server 2005 64-bit (of couse including 64-bit hardware and Windows).
> >>
> >> Regarding High availability look in BOL for Failover Clustering and
> >> Database
> >> Mirroring and see which one is better for your specific implementation.
> >>
> >> Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
> >> Database Administrator
> >>
> >>
> >> "Eli Milkova" wrote:
> >>
> >> > Our multiinstance multidatabase box (ML 350 4 GB RAM W2003 SE and
> >> > SQL2000 SE
> >> > SP4) will be replaces and a research is going for new sql server.
> >> > Optionally
> >> > wed like to have high avaiability of all instances and databases. Any
> >> > advice
> >> > for hw , database sw (to stay with mssql2000 or to go for 2005) , ha
> >> > solution
> >> > , 32 or 64 architecture and etc. is appreciated
>
>|||The answer is "it depends".
Mirroring works at the database level so it would have to be set up for each
DB. If you run it in full synchronous mode you will need up to 40% more
server capacity on each end of the mirror to handle the extra load AND the
system will be more unstable at very high loads. If you are willing to deal
with a less stringent scenario, you can save a lot of money.
Clustering is a lot less expensive than it used to be. You can cluster with
Standard Edition SQL 2005 with two nodes, shich cuts your licensing costs
dramatically. There is also some very good and reasonably priced clustering
hardware on the market today. I have built dual-proc dual-core clusters for
~$35-40K including all OS and SQL Licenses. Quad-proc versions run about
$100K.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E9112291-7D4D-445F-B92F-D05318E89B24@.microsoft.com...
> msql cluster environment requires expensive cluster hardware and does not
> protect on db level. Since we have two DCs I find data mirroring with sql
> server 2005 32/64b very attractive but I wonder how mirror will perform
> with
> few instances and dozen databases in each instance.
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> With only 30 databases, testing should not be an unreasonable process.
>> You
>> can use Developer Edition to build a test platform and see if the your
>> applications are SQL 2005 compliant. Worst case, you may need to put
>> some
>> databases in 8.0 compatibality mode. You don't need to test for 64-bit
>> compatibility, since all editions should perform identically. Also, all
>> editions are on-disk compatible and interchangable.
>> As for the upgrade process, yes it is almost as easy as the copy database
>> wizard. I prefer backup/restore since that leaves the original system
>> intact. Note that you can backup from a SQL 2000 system and restore to a
>> SQL 2005 server, but you cannot go the in the other direction. The only
>> complex part is matching up the logins and transferring the scheduled
>> jobs.
>> Again, decent testing should reveal most of these problems.
>> There are numerous licensing and performance advantages to using SQL
>> 2005,
>> especially on the AMD64/EMT64 platform. I would start with a conversion
>> plan and an estimated cluster solution and see if management agrees.
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>>
>>
>> "Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:FD47031D-49E3-4031-8C14-C685F6AA5277@.microsoft.com...
>> > Currently we have 30+ databases all shape and size and I doubt they all
>> > be
>> > sertified for 64 bit SQL SERVER. I think its not so simple as just use
>> > copy
>> > database wizard, right?
>> >
>> > "Ben Nevarez" wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> In my opinion you should start your research by focusing only on the
>> >> future:
>> >> SQL Server 2005 64-bit (of couse including 64-bit hardware and
>> >> Windows).
>> >>
>> >> Regarding High availability look in BOL for Failover Clustering and
>> >> Database
>> >> Mirroring and see which one is better for your specific
>> >> implementation.
>> >>
>> >> Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
>> >> Database Administrator
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Eli Milkova" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Our multiinstance multidatabase box (ML 350 4 GB RAM W2003 SE and
>> >> > SQL2000 SE
>> >> > SP4) will be replaces and a research is going for new sql server.
>> >> > Optionally
>> >> > wed like to have high avaiability of all instances and databases.
>> >> > Any
>> >> > advice
>> >> > for hw , database sw (to stay with mssql2000 or to go for 2005) , ha
>> >> > solution
>> >> > , 32 or 64 architecture and etc. is appreciated
>>

New MSDE Installation

What is the proper way to install a new MSDE Installation?
MSDE Release A then SP4
or
Can SP4 be used for a new installation on a PC?
hi,
topherdel wrote:
> What is the proper way to install a new MSDE Installation?
> MSDE Release A then SP4
> or
> Can SP4 be used for a new installation on a PC?
you can go both way... but directly installing sp4 will result in lower
installation time...
just a caveat... at the moment is not clear to me if it's legal for non
entitled persons (people not owing a legal copy of a product entiteling for
MSDE sp4 new installation use) to use sp4 package to directly install new
instances... but it is legal to use that package to upgrade MSDE Rel. A
instances to sp4...
I've been told a refresh of MSDE Rel.A updated at sp4 level will be
available, but no idea for the time frame...
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
|||The rules seem to change with each release as to who can use it and who cannot.
"Andrea Montanari" wrote:

> hi,
> topherdel wrote:
> you can go both way... but directly installing sp4 will result in lower
> installation time...
> just a caveat... at the moment is not clear to me if it's legal for non
> entitled persons (people not owing a legal copy of a product entiteling for
> MSDE sp4 new installation use) to use sp4 package to directly install new
> instances... but it is legal to use that package to upgrade MSDE Rel. A
> instances to sp4...
> I've been told a refresh of MSDE Rel.A updated at sp4 level will be
> available, but no idea for the time frame...
> --
> Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
> http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
> DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
> (my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
> interface)
> -- remove DMO to reply
>
>