Welcome to Software Answers Inc. Sign in | Join | Help

June 2005 - Posts

Unmanaged development management

OK, this is pretty amazing.  I'm going to give you the following quote, edited out only so that the product in question is not obvious:

The full ChangeLog ended up missing, because I only have the history from TESTVERSION-X in my SOURCECONTROLSYSTEM archives, but if you want to, you can puzzle it together by taking the RELEASEVERSION changelog and merging it with the TESTVERSION-A and TESTVERSION-B logs in the testing directory. The file that says "ChangeLog-RELEASEVERSION" only contains the stuff from -B onward.

You may already know what this is referring to. If you don't, let's just leave it at "major Open Source product." Ask yourself - is this quality development? "I can't tell you what's changed, but you can probably work it out by piecing together these three files... I won't bother doing that, though." I don't think so.

P. S. If I wanted this to be a slam, I'd outright tell you the product. It's more just an FYI.
Posted by BazarewskyM | 0 Comments

Windows 2000 post-SP4 rollup released!

The last gasp of full Windows 2000 support has now happened, very close to the drop-dead date for normal Windows 2000 support: the post-SP4 security rollup has been released!  It can be downloaded now from Microsoft.

P. S. Why do you care about this?  Isn't it time to go to Windows Server 2003 already?????

P. P. S. As is often the case, thanks to Bink for the heads-up.

Posted by BazarewskyM | 0 Comments

Some more on Exchange 2003 SP2

The official Exchange blog has some more information on Exchange 2003 SP2 leaking out.  In particular, two nice things:

  • An overview of the SP, much nicer than the marketing level on MS's corporate site.  Better OAB sync is quite nice.
  • A post about device security policies - you can control enterprise security policy on a PPC so that passwords are enforced.  You also in that blog get a nice sneak peak of the new interface screen for Exchange ActiveSync and the policy choices.

I can't wait.  It's sweet to think that already PalmOne devices have Exchange ActiveSync support, and check out the Blue Angel PDA!

Posted by BazarewskyM | 0 Comments

SQL Server 2000, LocalSystem, and Volume Shadow Backups

We have a customer who tries to be strict about SQL Server 2000 security.  They had decided to remove Local System (NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM) from the local sysadmin role on their production server.  This was OK until moving to Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition on their SQL Server 2000, Enterprise Edition cluster.  At that point, backups started to break.  Because the Local System account is typically in the sysadmin role (in fact, I had never seen it removed), this is not something that comes up very often.  However, it is nonetheless an issue; backups of any volume with SQL data, even if not backing up SQL data, lead to an error:

Event Type: Error
Event Source: VSS
Event Category: None
Event ID: 6013
User:  N/A
Description:
Sqllib error: OLEDB Error encountered calling ICommandText::Execute. hr = 0x80040e09. SQLSTATE: 42000, Native Error: 229
Error state: 5, Severity: 14
Source: Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server
Error message: SELECT permission denied on object 'sysaltfiles', database 'master', owner 'dbo'.

The natural thought next was to assign db_backupoperator to the Local System account, and grant read access to the master database.  However, that is not good enough, because next you get this:

Event Type:       Error
Description:
Sqllib error: OLEDB Error encountered calling ICommandText::Execute. hr = 0x80040e14. SQLSTATE: 42000, Native Error: 3013
Error state: 1, Severity: 16
Source: Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server
Error message: BACKUP DATABASE is terminating abnormally.
SQLSTATE: 42000, Native Error: 3265
Error state: 1, Severity: 16
Source: Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server
Error message: The login has insufficient authority. Membership of the sysadmin role is required to use VIRTUAL_DEVICE with BACKUP or RESTORE
So, this leads to the next question - how do we make this work?  Well, here's the answer - you can't!  Here's the appropriate part of the mail from MS regarding this issue (call SRX050418600880):
When any requestor uses SQL Writer, it has to login to SQL Server to do some work including taking SNAPSHOT BACKUP to a virtual deviceWe can see in the profiler trace that this call is what is generating the above message.
BACKUP DATABASE [master] TO VIRTUAL_DEVICE='{96CDFB69-5238-419C-825B-FCD9C5AC0DCF}1' WITH SNAPSHOT,BUFFERCOUNT=1,BLOCKSIZE=1024
 
This is done using VDI or virtual device interface which veritas seems to be using in their backup application. When using VDI the call to Initialize the Backupdeviceset checks to see if the login is sysadmin if not it raises the above error.
 
For a normal backup it is not required for the user to be a sysadmin, but in the case of VDI, there is a requirement that the login be a sysadmin.  A Design Change Request (DCR) has already been filed to change this behavior so that a non-sa can take VDI backups in SQL Server 2005
 
At this time this is by design and it is required that the Local System Account have sysadmin privileges in SQL Server for the backup functionality to work properly.
Notice that there is no answer for SQL 2000, but it's enough of a recognized issue to theoretically make it to SQL 2005.  We'll see.  For now, here's hoping someone looking for this same problem will be able to find this post, or if they call MS the PSS rep will find the same case.
 
Posted by BazarewskyM | 0 Comments

More Best Practices Analyzers coming

The Exchange Best Practices Analyzer is a wonderful tool - we have used it at multiple client sites to help sort out issues and in general make things better.  I often wondered why other folks, SQL in particular, did not have a similar tool.  Well, it looks like they will, in 2006, according to TechEd this year.  Nice!
Posted by BazarewskyM | 0 Comments

Exchange 2003 SP2 - why it matters to many of our SMB customers

I was ignoring the Exchange 2003 SP2 "announcement that's not an announcement" because it's so far away, and many other people were going crazy over it (kind of silly given how far off it is), but towards the bottom of the page, there's a very important point...

Increase in mailbox storage size limits to 75 gigabyte (GB) for Exchange Server 2003 Standard Edition in response to customer feedback and evolving mailbox storage needs.

Now, the "BlackBerry killer" stuff is something that one client cares about.  But, this one, almost all of our clients care about.  16 GB is not much, but 75 GB is huge.  If you have a 75 GB datastore, then paying for Enterprise Edition is justifiable.

This is such a big deal... it's worth waiting for, although jeeze, announcing it now when release is "second half of 2005" is pushing it.

Posted by BazarewskyM | 0 Comments

Google Maps and radar

The other day I was at Google Maps looking up some directions (Expedia was not coming up at the site I was at - blocked by a proxy filter), and noticed that they now have satellite images available.  You can do a turn-by-turn directions listing, pick one of the lines of the directions, and get a window to come up with that part of the map.  There is a link for "Satellite", and that changes the picture from a graphic map view to an overhead view, with the line drawn on it.  This is very very cool.  There is one pair of related major problems I noticed from a user friendliness viewpoint; you can't zoom in very far, and you can't get the picture to rotate.  These issues together make it harder than necessary sometimes to figure out what the satellite is really trying to tell you, even through it should be easier than the graphical map.  (Compare this to Microsoft Virtual Earth and it's 3-D changable views....)
Posted by BazarewskyM | 0 Comments

SQL Server 2005, Visual Studio 2005 and BizTalk Server 2006 will launch the week of November 7

According to bink, TechEd had an announcement today that SQL Server 2005, Visual Studio 2005 and BizTalk Server 2006 will launch the week of November 7.  This is in line with expectations, I believe.  (It does miss the PDC this year, which is a bit of a disappointment.)  It's nice to have a final date.

In related news, the June 2005 CTP of SQL Server 2005 has been released.  Go get it!

Edit Jun 7 4:21 pm: MSDN has an official page on this as well.

Posted by BazarewskyM | 0 Comments

Apple on x86 - took them long enough!

Rumored many times, pushed so hard over the weekend that NPR had mentioned it this morning, it is now official that Apple is going to be running on Intel.  This is mentioned at ArsTechnica.com as well as Slashdot and News.com and so on and so on.

What I find amazing about this is after many years of Steve Jobs swearing up and down that PPC was clearly a better processor than anything on the x86 side, that supposedly OS X has been running on x86 for five years.  Clearly this means that Apple knew this day would come, even if they never wanted to admit that "thinking different" was crushing them.  (Edit June 7 2:55 pm - it should be noted that of course Darwin, the open source kernel for OS X, has been on x86 the whole time, which looking back now was clearly quite easy given that they had the whole OS there, and it makes the five year number not hard to believe.)

Now, what will be very interesting is, how will OS X look when it's running on hardware that Apple doesn't have complete control over?  We already know that overclocking is a serious problem on the x86 side.  We also know that there's a lot of buggy hardware out there.  (Aside: I recently had 5 out of 13 memory modules from a major name brand arrive bad.  We wouldn't have known if not for Memtest86.)  It will be interesting to see if the official answer is "if you don't run on official overpriced Apple hardware, you get no support", as that will be counterproductive to market share, even if it avoids these problems.  It will also be interesting to see if there are never AMD-based boxes, as x86-64 is clearly the future of 64-bit computing for the large majority of users for some time to come, and it's an AMD invention.

Posted by BazarewskyM | 0 Comments

WSUS - Windows Server Update Services - Released

A post at bink.nu was nice enough to point out that WSUS has now been released!  This means that central, corporate control of patches for Microsoft Windows, Office, SQL Server, and Exchange (with more in the future) are available for free using the native Windows Update functionality (soon to be Microsoft Update).  This is very important for smaller customers and low-touch environments, who don't want to touch a third-party patch management product or who have been burned by them in the place.
Posted by BazarewskyM | 0 Comments

IIS 7 news

Robert McLaws has posted a blog entry with all kinds of details about IIS 7.0.  One very interesting point:

 I saved the most important info for last: ship schedule. Right now, the team is code complete on IIS7. They are currently working on integrating into Longhorn, which is targeted for the end of July. That means that IIS7 will not be a part of Longhorn until Beta 2.

Note that the beta right now is running on 2003 SP1, which is what makes this last statement possible.  I agree withb Robert that I can't wait to get a hold of it and start playing with it.  Hopefully we'll get SA's web site there as soon as we possibly can legally do so.

Posted by BazarewskyM | 0 Comments