We have an instance of SQL Notifcation Services for which we have written a custom delivery channel. We had this process up and running in our QA environment running Windows Server 2003 with SQL Server 2005. It took a little bit of tweaking to the get the custom DLL trusted however we got it all working.
We have since deployed this code to our Live environment. This runs Windows Server 2008 with an Instance of SQL 2005 for Notification Services but then we have an instance of SQL 2008 which hosts the actual DB instance for Notification Services. Notification Services works as it should however we cannot get the custom DLL to be trusted as a result the custom delivery channel won't work. We simply get the error
That assembly does not allow partially trusted callers
We have tried using the .NET configuration utility and caspol.exe to give the .dll full trust with no luck at all. The .dll is compiled as a .NET 2 dll as notification service requires this.
We are pretty much out of ideas at the moment and hoping someone can suggest something?
We have managed to fix our issue. It would appear that Windows Server 2008 is stricter in its implementation of code access. By giving granting access to the .DLL by it's strong name rather than it's path allowed Notification Services to access the code.
Notification Services was not at fault.
I think you have one of two choices:
Embrace SQL 2008 and get rid of Notification Services because it was deprecated. Use Reporting Services or SSIS to do what you need.
Revert back to SQL 2005.
IMHO, I'd go option 1. Continuing to build with deprecated tools is going to quickly find you in a situation where support (community or vendor) is going to be extremely hard to come by.
update
This was too long for comments.
Not to beat your head too much, but continuing to develop applications for a technology that was EOL'd (end of life) over 3 years ago was the first mistake. The EOL statement was made quite public.
The second was having a QA environment that is radically different from production. Before deploying anything to production, the QA environment should have been identical... same type of hardware, same OS's, same server versions and patch levels. Otherwise QA is a joke, as you've found.
Now, as to the "resolution", there really is only one path: Revert your production environment back to SQL 2005 with the appropriate patches in place.
I wish you luck.
Related
I might be completely off on this, but is there a way to have a database project point to a remote server? My reason for asking is that we have a shared DEV Database for development use, and it seems like overkill for each developer to have a local instance of SQL Server as well. Is there a connection string that I can set or modify to point the remote server, or is the only way you can have a database project is to have a local instance on your machine. Please let me know if what I am asking does not make sense.
Thanks!
SQL Server Data Tools (which is what you're using for your database project) can work in two ways:
Connected Database mode.
Project oriented, offline database mode.
If you look at those articles. you will see that for development purposes, in both cases a localdb instance is needed. The local server is a limited SQL Server Express installation, which comes by default with Data Tools. So all you need to do is install Data Tools. If you already did, then you have localdb support.
More on this from MSDN:
Microsoft SQL Server 2012 provides a local on-demand server instance,
called SQL Server Express Local Database Runtime, which is activated
when you debug a SQL Server Database project. This local server
instance can be used as a sandbox for building, testing and debugging
your project. It is independent of any of your installed SQL Server
instances, and is not accessible outside SQL Server Data Tools (SSDT).
The workflow, for a central development database, would be:
Create the database project and distribute it to each developer.
Developers work "offline" and add/remove objects from the database.
Before submitting the changes to source control, each developer also syncs the local database changes with the central development database.
The rest of the team gets the changes from source control, so no manual sync needed. Only a new localdb publish would be required.
Of course, there are many other things to consider: local data (see here about replicating data to the real database), and some features not supported by localdb (like full text search).
I've tried this flow and works really well if you learn to control it. You always get a consistent central development database, without intermediary and unstable modifications.
You can change the "Debug" properties to point to a different server than the (localdb) instance. Most times you won't do this unless you're using some features that aren't supported in the (localdb). That would let you push the changes to your central server on each debug build. However, this could have a lot of unintended consequences if you're just playing around. The better option would be to leave the (localdb) debug instance alone and set up Publish Profiles for a real "Local" SQL Server install and for your shared Dev server. That way you can do all of your dev work offline and only push changes to the shared dev server when you're ready to do so.
I have a series of blog articles on SSDT at my blog that may be helpful: http://schottsql.blogspot.com. I'd also recommend looking at Jamie Thomson's blog at http://sqlblog.com - he has a lot of tips on DB and SQL Projects that could be helpful.
I need to create an application that does the following:
The application is going to be installed on multiple computers on the same network
There is going to be a computer that contains the database other computers will connect to that database. (So there is a server version of the software and a client version)
All the computers that have the application installed should be able to do CRUD (create, read,...) operations in the database.
Database will be small, that is it should be less than 1GB in size.
Problems that I have:
I don't know which database to use:
SQLite - From researching on the internet this seems like a great database. It is fast, very easy to deploy . The problem is that from researching I think it is not that good handling multiple connections. When I say multiple I mean 5 computers using the database simultaneously.
MySQL - I work with this database and I know it is great handling multiple connections. The problem with that database is that I don't know how I will be able to deploy that database. I am required to deploy a database when installing the software. I know that if I require the users to instal MySQL doing a separate installation that will work. Maybe there is a way of deploying MySQL when doploying a project in visual studio.
SQL Server Express - I believe this will be my best option. I have researched on the internet and I found out that it is possible to deploy a SQL Server Express database with a application. I believe it will be easy to figure out how to deploy such database with a project but it will be nice if someone can point me on the right direction on how to connect to that database remotely from a computer on the same network. The database will obviously be shared in the network in order to achieve this.
Microsoft Access Database - I never use this database. I know it can handle multiple connections. Maybe it is a good choice.
It will be nice if someone can point me on the right direction of how to be able to deploy a database when installing my application. Moreover how will I be able to connect to that database from a computer remotely on the same network. Since the database is small and it will just contain text I think that the best idea will be to keep the database on the internet but I cannot do that. The software is required to work without an internet connection.
EDIT
From looking at your answers it looks like I have to install SQL Server express or MySql on the server computer. The problem is that I am required to do one installation. Is there a way of deploying MySql or SQL Server Express when deploying my application. Perhaps I have to embed mysql in the application and make my application install it somehow. My boss want to be able to install the software without having a internet connection.
EDIT 2
I been thinking and this part will be very hard to implement. Do you guys have any ideas how QuickBooks implement their database? I guess I need something similar. When you install Quickbooks you perform just one installation. Quick-books handles pretty well simultaneous connections. Do they use their own database? Oracle? MySQL? I agree with all of you. It will be so easy to perform two installations. Also it will be cleaner. The software that I am creating is supposed to run on windows xp, and latter versions of windows.
If you want a dbms as your backend you are installing two things, It could look to the user like one thing, but I can tell you from bitter experience, that can be a lot of fun.
For instance to install 2005/ 2008 express, there are various prerequisites. Like a .net framework. Then there's patches and updates, then opening up the firewall(s), depends on set up. Different topology / os choices. Peer to peer, domain based, Active directory, Terminal Services, citrix.
So automagically installing without an internet connection, and using the installer for the db, is nigh on impossible, unless you have rigid control over the user environments.
Welcome to a world of hurt.
Oh did I mention permissions, shares, UAC, 32/64 bit (for sql server dmo and smo, maybe)
Do you want to block installs on "incompatible" environments.
Oh and what about upgrades. To the db, to your apps.
What if your client already has a server install and doesn't want to clutter up their kit with another...
and many many more.
And I bet you just can't wait to test all the potential combinations.
You haven't said what your target environments are going to be, so I can't say how many worms are in the tin, but its's very big time with plenty of room for lots of worms.
Ours is a long running legacy app, so we are pretty much snookered, I'd never willingly start with this design again though. Locally deployed web app would take a lot of the pain out of it.
Go back and scare the crap out of your boss.
I would recommend Sql Server Express installed on a server on your network.
Microsoft Access doesn't handle multiple simultaneous connections very well and is not very efficient when accessed from a remote machine.
You don't need to worry about deploying the database with your client application, you can install Sql Server Express directly on the server. (This only needs to be done once). You will need to configure Sql Server Express to accept remote connections after it is installed on the server.
SQLexpress supports multiple connections. So if you attach database on "server" computer you can than connect from clients same way as you would to local database.(provided those computers are in LAN or VPN).
Several articles on the Internet mention that SQLite is not that good handling multiple connections if all the connections are writing to the same database. I finally managed to deploy my application with SQL Server 2008 express. I also deployed my application with SQLite (downloaded the latest version for .NET framework 4). Since I plan to use this database just on a local network (LAN) I gave SQLite a try. I was impressed on how efficient SQLite was. I tested the Database by connecting with 4 computers symoltaniously and constantly writing data (inserts) to the database. No data was lost. When I did this with SQL express it was also very efficient and I could not tell a obvious difference. Maybe you get to see a real difference once there are 50 computers connected like on a web server for example.
Other nice things about SQLite are that it does not take time to deploy. Also there are no heavy services constantly running. I guess that SQLite is a better choice than SQL express. Moreover SQLexpress will only use 1 CPU and the database is limited to 2GB.
I am going to mist the Linq to SQL classes thought. They where very easy to implement with SQL Server Express. So in short I think that every database is good at something. And in this scenario I guess SQLite was a better option for me and for the users.
P.S.
I am interested in seeing how SQLite lattest version will hanle multiple connections compared to SQLexpress. I will try to test soon with more computers and each computer running multiple threads, each thread performing an insert in the database. maybe I,ll see a big difference with that scenario.
I'm getting desperate so was hoping someone could help. We've re-written an old VB app that uses CDOEXM to create mailboxes in Exchange 2003. The new C# code is very similar and looks like this:
CDOEXM.IMailboxStore mailbox;
mailbox = (IMailboxStore)user.NativeObject;
mailbox.CreateMailbox(homeMDB);
user.CommitChanges();
The server running the code needed to have Exchange Management Tools installed for it to work (that installs the CDOEXM libraries that we require)
This works fine on XP, but we're also moving to Windows 2008 64bit servers, and I have been unable to install Exchange Management Tools on here because it says there's a compatibility issue.
Can anyone recommend a way around this? As I said, we're getting desperate because this is going to prevent a production release if we can't solve it, so would really appreciate some help.
Thanks
EDIT: incidentally I manually registered the CDOEXM dlls as a bit of a bodge, and I now get this error:
Problem creating mailboxSystem.ArgumentException: Value does not fall within the expected range.
at CDOEXM.IMailboxStore.CreateMailbox(String HomeMDBURL)
The homeMDBURL I am using is a valid one as far as I can tell though
I don't think CDOEXM is supported on Windows 2008. What about having a Windows 2003 Server around which hosts a WebService that does the mailbox creation stuff?
Another option is to create the mailbox without using CDOEXM. Note that this approach is totally unsupported by Microsoft. But if you populate enough properties (I don't know them all out of my head) like homeMDB and others, the Recipient Update Service (RUS) will create the mailbox on its next run. If I recall it correctly, the RUS runs every two minutes by default.
Btw, you did run your C# program as a 32bit process, right?
After developing for a few years (or more), I still do not understand:
What makes User Instances impossible/incompatible with Developer (or any other) edition of SQL Server?
Why has developer to install more than one (i.e. developer edition) of SQL Server because user instances are available only through Express Edition?
Update: #Damien_The_Unbeliever wrote in his answer,
"User instances are pretty well expected to be standalone databases, only used by a single application, and meaningless without that application."
Do I understand correctly that user instances:
require SQL Server Express setup
cannot be connected remotely
the user cannot have more than one such instance?
the client apps that connect to them are dev tools like VS, SSMS, webadmin, SQL Express Utility, etc?
Really I do not understand when/why/how they can be used/deployed outside of development environment
What are the non-dev cases of SQL Server User Instances (vs CE and other embedded databases)?
I don't believe that there are any technical reasons why the user instance functionality couldn't exist in the other editions - but the non-express editions represent a different form of expected usage.
User instances are pretty well expected to be standalone databases, only used by a single application, and meaningless without that application.
Databases under Standard/Enterprise edition are expected to be maintained (possibly by dedicated DBAs) as standalone resources, with maintenance plans, scheduled jobs, etc. They're expected to use additional features of these editions, and it wouldn't make sense for a single application to control the availability of these databases.
And as a developer, you only need both installed if you're working on systems in which both usages make sense - both building small scale websites with simple data requirements, and larger systems that need more complex database systems.
The "typical" example of an application that would use a user instance, but not being a dev tool, would be a small web application. It may have one or more mdf files in it's App_Data folder. It may run such services as its membership system from such a DB. An advantage of such a setup is that an XCopy deploy of such a website is sufficient for the entire application to be ready - the connection string will be valid immediately.
How can I make a program use a SQL Server database, and have that program work on whatever computer it's installed on.
If you've been following my string of questions today, you'd know that I'm making an open source and free Help Desk suite for small and medium businesses.
The client application.
The client application is a Windows Forms app. On installation and first launch on every client machine, it'll ask for the address of the main Help Desk server.
The server.
Here I plan to handle all incoming help requests, show them to the IT guys, and provide WCF services for the Client application to consume.
My dilemma lies in that, I know how to make the program run on my local machine; but I'm really stumped on how to make this work for everyone who wants to download and install the server bit on their Windows Server.
Would I have to make an SQL Script and have it run on the MS SQL server when a user wants to install the 'server' application?
Many thanks to all for your valuable time and effort to teach me. It's really really appreciated. :)
Edit:
To clarify, each business will have their server completely separate from me. I will have no access whatsoever to them nor will they be in any way connected to me. (I don't know why I should clarify this :P )
So, assuming the have ABSOLUTELY NO DATABASE SERVER installed; what can I do?
Ok, part of the answer, dealing with the SQL Server Database (and frankly SQL Server Express will take you a long way - 4Gb of data) and the server install elements.
Firstly make installation of the SQL an SEP, make it a pre-requisite possibly tweak your installers to test (challenging) but substantially point them at the links to SQL Server express and let them get on with it).
Secondly separate installers, as suggested, for your client and your server elements.
Finally, how to build the database - I'd suggest using code to create and maintain (update) the schema i.e. once you have a connection to a server you can run code that calls DDL that does what is necessary (something like suggested here: How to create "embedded" SQL 2008 database file if it doesn't exist?)
A question - are you intending all communications from the clients to go through you WCF service?
Your install application should:
Obtain a SQL Server name, a username (with apprpriate rights to create a database) and password.
Either run SQL scripts using the locally installed command line tool or from code using SMO (for instance), against the user supplied server with the supplied credentials.
BTW, Before you expend effort writing an open-source help desk, have you checked what is already available? Also, Open Source Helpdesk
It is not so straightforward to deploy a client/server solution with an automatic installation.
You probably would then be better off to deploy your server installation together with a database engine and a skeleton database already setup according to your wishes. This is to avoid tampering too much with the existing server - who knows whats on it.
Also you say you want to install WCF services, well this would probably mean installing them on a customer server, in theory this shouldn't be a problem however in reality it could be, depending on what is previously on the server.
Do you want a single SQL Server instance running on your machine, or one on each of your customers' servers? If it's the latter, you'll want to install a SQL Server instance - anything from the (free, but limited and not open-source) SQL Server Express to a more expensive SKU - on each server. You can include this step in your server installation package; MSI installs make it very easy to bundle a MSSQL install.
Then you'll need to drop a schema, and maybe data, on the instance. You could do this as a step in your installer, or as part of your application setup process. It possible that a SQL Server instance, or more than one, might already be installed on the server, and your post-install step should allow the user to specify which instance on which to install your pieces.
Then, include a database configuration piece in your client application. Ask the user - or take from a configuration file at client install time, to allow for unattended or unprompted client installs - server connection details, like server name and authentication information.
A word on authentication - since you appear to be building Windows-based tools, use Windows integrated (domain-managed) authentication if at all possible. Don't get in the business of storing logins, but instead rely on the existing domain to manage logins. A good strategy is to use active directory groups to manage access. Grant access to a particular group in SQL Server, and defer group membership to Active Directory itself. If you can't gain the access necessary to do this, then grant permissions to AD user accounts themselves. Avoid creating SQL Server logins, the use of which open the door to some possible security problems.
I understand what you are trying to do. If I were you, I'd do the following:
Provide 2 downloads - 1 for client and 1 for server.
Forget about MS SQL Server and perhaps go with MySQL, since it really is open source. You could probably get away with using MS SQL Server Express Edition, but if your data set gets gigantic large (which is common with help desk databases), you'd be stuck.
As other people pointed out, on very first run (or at setup time), I'd have the client app locate the server.