Best Practices Question

We have a small inventory database (<1GB). We have a public IIS Server and a
separate box SQL 2005 backend.
I have two ways I can deliver reports to the customer:
1.)create reports on the Reporting Server
2.)create them on the IIS Server locally (.rldc)
In each case I use the ReportViewer component to display them (so I either
connect the ReportViewer to Server Report or to a local .rdlc).
My question is, is it better to create reports on the report server or to do
them in the asp.net project locally -- an rdlc off a dataset?
Note load is very small so server power/capacity for both is not an issue in
this case.
Thank youAs far as executing them not much difference for your situation. However, it
is much easier to create reports for RS rather than local reports if you are
doing anything with subreports, drillthrough etc. You have to write code for
these situations which are handled for you automatically with RS. Also, no
such thing as preview report in development for rdlc. My advice if you go
the rdlc route is to at least develop most of the initial report using the
RS report designer (rather than the designer for rdlc that comes with VS).
Then once it is working (note that you do not need to have a server to
deploy to) rename the report from rdl to rdlc and then add it into your
project at that point.
Note that one thing that is easier with local reports is security, you
handle all that yourself.
--
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"dev648237923" <dev648237923@.noemail.noemail> wrote in message
news:eADLneepGHA.2292@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> We have a small inventory database (<1GB). We have a public IIS Server and
> a separate box SQL 2005 backend.
> I have two ways I can deliver reports to the customer:
> 1.)create reports on the Reporting Server
> 2.)create them on the IIS Server locally (.rldc)
> In each case I use the ReportViewer component to display them (so I either
> connect the ReportViewer to Server Report or to a local .rdlc).
> My question is, is it better to create reports on the report server or to
> do them in the asp.net project locally -- an rdlc off a dataset?
> Note load is very small so server power/capacity for both is not an issue
> in this case.
> Thank you
>|||Thanks for Bruce's input,
Hi dev648237923,
I agree with Bruce. As for Local report(rdlc based), it has less
functionality comparing to the server-report(rdl based) supported by the
SQL server reporting service. Actually, local report(rdlc) is a pure .net
framework and Visual Studio 2005 specific solution which is completely
separated from the SQL Server reporting service. In other words, you can
use rdlc report totally without an SQL Server reporting service instance
existing in your environment.(All the rdlc can be created in Visual Studio
and the datasource can be created there, too). While for SSRS report, it
provides many rich support on subreports or drillthrough reports, also the
whole SQL Server reporting services supply us many other features like
custom extensions or some report delivery options. These ones are what we
can not easily do through local report.
For your scenario, I'm wondering whether your report rely heavily on those
SSRS service functionalities. If all of them can be done through client
reports without any difference from server reports. Why not use client
reports, that can make all the work done through Visual Studio without
involving SQL Server reporting service.
Here is a reportviewer Q/A article which mentions many client and server
reports' difference.
#ReportViewer Control in Visual Studio 2005
http://www.gotreportviewer.com/
Please feel free to post here if you have any other concerns or
consideration on this.
Regards,
Steven Cheng
Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Get Secure! www.microsoft.com/security
(This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
rights.)|||What you and Bruce said worked great -- thnaks for all the great info!
"Steven Cheng[MSFT]" <stcheng@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:86HUKzjpGHA.1572@.TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for Bruce's input,
> Hi dev648237923,
> I agree with Bruce. As for Local report(rdlc based), it has less
> functionality comparing to the server-report(rdl based) supported by the
> SQL server reporting service. Actually, local report(rdlc) is a pure .net
> framework and Visual Studio 2005 specific solution which is completely
> separated from the SQL Server reporting service. In other words, you can
> use rdlc report totally without an SQL Server reporting service instance
> existing in your environment.(All the rdlc can be created in Visual Studio
> and the datasource can be created there, too). While for SSRS report, it
> provides many rich support on subreports or drillthrough reports, also the
> whole SQL Server reporting services supply us many other features like
> custom extensions or some report delivery options. These ones are what we
> can not easily do through local report.
> For your scenario, I'm wondering whether your report rely heavily on those
> SSRS service functionalities. If all of them can be done through client
> reports without any difference from server reports. Why not use client
> reports, that can make all the work done through Visual Studio without
> involving SQL Server reporting service.
> Here is a reportviewer Q/A article which mentions many client and server
> reports' difference.
> #ReportViewer Control in Visual Studio 2005
> http://www.gotreportviewer.com/
> Please feel free to post here if you have any other concerns or
> consideration on this.
> Regards,
> Steven Cheng
> Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
>
> ==================================================> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
> that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
> ==================================================>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
>
> Get Secure! www.microsoft.com/security
> (This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.)
>|||Thanks for the followup,
Glad that those information is of assistance.
Please feel free to post here if there is anything we can help & Have a
nice day!
Regards,
Steven Cheng
Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Get Secure! www.microsoft.com/security
(This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
rights.)

Best performance for SQL2000

Hi
i must configure a RAID on external storage disk array for my SQL 2000
cluster ad have think this configuration :
1- DataFile on separate RAID5 LUN
2- LogFile on another separate RAID5 LUN
3- Quorum on another separate RAID1 LUN
This configugation is good for performace (datafile e logfile separated) and
security (Quorum on Mirror) !'!
Thanks in advanceMake the Log on a RAID 1 or a 10 and not a 5. Raid 5 has too many writes
for peak performance of logs.Put the extra disks into the data raid 5 or
make it a raid 10 for better performance.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<io.com> wrote in message news:OfbXh0YoEHA.1800@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> i must configure a RAID on external storage disk array for my SQL 2000
> cluster ad have think this configuration :
> 1- DataFile on separate RAID5 LUN
> 2- LogFile on another separate RAID5 LUN
> 3- Quorum on another separate RAID1 LUN
> This configugation is good for performace (datafile e logfile separated)
and
> security (Quorum on Mirror) !'!
> Thanks in advance
>|||Ok therefore :
datafile RAID5
logfile RAID1
quorum RAID1
it's ok ?
thanks
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uFE6MNaoEHA.324@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Make the Log on a RAID 1 or a 10 and not a 5. Raid 5 has too many writes
> for peak performance of logs.Put the extra disks into the data raid 5 or
> make it a raid 10 for better performance.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> <io.com> wrote in message news:OfbXh0YoEHA.1800@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > Hi
> >
> > i must configure a RAID on external storage disk array for my SQL 2000
> > cluster ad have think this configuration :
> >
> > 1- DataFile on separate RAID5 LUN
> > 2- LogFile on another separate RAID5 LUN
> > 3- Quorum on another separate RAID1 LUN
> >
> > This configugation is good for performace (datafile e logfile separated)
> and
> > security (Quorum on Mirror) !'!
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> >
>|||Yes
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<io.com> wrote in message news:ORYQO1aoEHA.1608@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Ok therefore :
> datafile RAID5
> logfile RAID1
> quorum RAID1
> it's ok ?
> thanks
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uFE6MNaoEHA.324@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Make the Log on a RAID 1 or a 10 and not a 5. Raid 5 has too many
writes
> > for peak performance of logs.Put the extra disks into the data raid 5 or
> > make it a raid 10 for better performance.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >
> >
> > <io.com> wrote in message news:OfbXh0YoEHA.1800@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > i must configure a RAID on external storage disk array for my SQL 2000
> > > cluster ad have think this configuration :
> > >
> > > 1- DataFile on separate RAID5 LUN
> > > 2- LogFile on another separate RAID5 LUN
> > > 3- Quorum on another separate RAID1 LUN
> > >
> > > This configugation is good for performace (datafile e logfile
separated)
> > and
> > > security (Quorum on Mirror) !'!
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Even better:
datafile RAID10
logfile RAID1
quorum RAID1
Regards
Mike
"io.com" wrote:
> Ok therefore :
> datafile RAID5
> logfile RAID1
> quorum RAID1
> it's ok ?
> thanks
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uFE6MNaoEHA.324@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Make the Log on a RAID 1 or a 10 and not a 5. Raid 5 has too many writes
> > for peak performance of logs.Put the extra disks into the data raid 5 or
> > make it a raid 10 for better performance.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >
> >
> > <io.com> wrote in message news:OfbXh0YoEHA.1800@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > i must configure a RAID on external storage disk array for my SQL 2000
> > > cluster ad have think this configuration :
> > >
> > > 1- DataFile on separate RAID5 LUN
> > > 2- LogFile on another separate RAID5 LUN
> > > 3- Quorum on another separate RAID1 LUN
> > >
> > > This configugation is good for performace (datafile e logfile separated)
> > and
> > > security (Quorum on Mirror) !'!
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

beginner question - instances VS. separate databases?

Hi, I hope this is the right place to ask this question.
I'm trying to get started programming databases against SQL Server Express. I'm pretty confident in understanding the techniques of how to access a database, a specific table, retrieve rows, etc. However, I’m having endless frustration in understanding the very rudimentary basics of how the SQL system even works. I know I don’t need this information to program against it on a simple level, but if I want to develop robust applications that I can distribute properly I need to know this, and it just seems so much more complicated than when I used MSDE.

One of the books I have describes how SQL Management Studio can log on to different server instances. Apparently, one can install SQL Server multiple times on the same system, and each one will create a new instance. And under that, each server instance can have multiple databases. But why would someone do that? Why have multiple instances? Why not just have one instance with multiple databases?

This issue leads into my confusion about the hierarchy of objects and the relevant security levels. For instance, it seems to me that I need a username and password to log onto the general server instance, and then another access permission to log onto the specific database. Isn’t this just a lot of unnecessary confusion, or am I misunderstanding something here?

Some clarification would me most appreciated.

One of the primary reasons to install SQL Server multiple times (instances) is to separate out security or other server-wide settings from each other. You can set one SA account on an instance to a particular Windows user, and the SA account on another instance to be a completely different account. You can also change server-wide settings to have different values on different instances.

As far as understanding the multiple features and architectures for SQL Server, you can check out this site. It will lead you through understanding the whole system from end to end.

http://www.informit.com/guides/guide.asp?g=sqlserver

Best of luck - Buck

|||I prefer to minimize number of instances and only break out over several instances when I have to. Reasons for doing that can be think like: Databases requires different collations for system databases Some database requires SQL Server logins, and other can do with Windows logins Other security aspects, making the databases sharing master database not suitable Memory and/or CPU allocation per instance Basic security isn't that difficult once you get used to terminology: Each person need a login. This can be a "SQL Server login" with a login name and password. Or a Windows login, where you grant a user or group in Windows to login. You also need grant a login "permissions" to use a database. You do this by creating a user name in the database for the login. Then you grant things like SELECT permissions to that user. The person doesn't really have to know what user name he has in the database (most likely the same name as the login name), the person will have to know the SQL Server login or Windows login. -- Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/ Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/ wrote in message news:82c3738e-a9e3-472d-9af9-a89f0acc60f7@.discussions.microsoft.com... Hi, I hope this is the right place to ask this question. I'm trying to get started programming databases against SQL Server Express. I'm pretty confident in understanding the techniques of how to access a database, a specific table, retrieve rows, etc. However, I’m having endless frustration in understanding the very rudimentary basics of how the SQL system even works. I know I don’t need this information to program against it on a simple level, but if I want to develop robust applications that I can distribute properly I need to know this, and it just seems so much more complicated than when I used MSDE. One of the books I have describes how SQL Management Studio can log on to different server instances. Apparently, one can install SQL Server multiple times on the same system, and each one will create a new instance. And under that, each server instance can have multiple databases. But why would someone do that? Why have multiple instances? Why not just have one instance with multiple databases? This issue leads into my confusion about the hierarchy of objects and the relevant security levels. For instance, it seems to me that I need a username and password to log onto the general server instance, and then another access permission to log onto the specific database. Isn’t this just a lot of unnecessary confusion, or am I misunderstanding something here? Some clarification would me most appreciated.|||

To be sure, instances are not the only way to control security. They merely provide a *server* level of separation. If you don't need that, don't use instances.

Production server instances are also used to control service pack levels. One application might dictate a certain service pack level; another might need a different one. Only a separate installation on a different system or an instance.

Buck