The login does exist in the security group. In the event log, the event occurs when the error message occurs in SQL Server Management Studio: The description for Event ID ( 18456 ) in Source ( MSSQL$MICROSOFT##SSEE ) cannot be found. The local computer may not have the necessary registry information or message DLL files to display messages from a remote computer. I ran the following command and there were no errors. It seemed to work, but I tried viewing properties in Management Studio and the error still occurs: C: sqlcmd -E -d master -S THOTH MICROSOFT##SSEE 1 ALTER LOGIN PBTF Group - IT DB Admins WITH DEFAULTDATABASE = master 2 go 1. Keep in mind that if a use belongs to multiple groups, the default database setting cannot be used!
Check the access paths and memberships: Use yourdb go - how does this login get to the database (authority paths) EXEC master.xplogininfo @acctname = 'mydomain mylogin',@option = 'all' go - who is member of this group EXEC master.xplogininfo @acctname = 'mydomain mygroup',@option = 'members' go Johan Dont drive faster than your guardian angel can fly. But keeping both feet on the ground wont get you anywhere -press F1 for solution, press shift+F1 for urgent solution:-D Need a bit of Powershell?
How to fix following errors: Windows SharePoint Services 3 id 3760 AND MSSQL$MICROSOFT##SSEE id 18456 and. Login failed for user 'NT AUTHORITY NETWORK.
How about Who am I? When I run the following in SSMS, I get: - how does this login get to the database (authority paths) EXEC master.xplogininfo @acctname = 'PBTF Group - IT DB Admins',@option = 'all' go Results: Msg 15404, Level 16, State 11, Procedure xplogininfo, Line 62 Could not obtain information about Windows NT group/user 'PBTF Group - IT DB Admins', error code 0x534. who is member of this group EXEC master.xplogininfo @acctname = 'PBTF Group - IT DB Admins',@option = 'members' go Results: The query executed successfully, but nothing was return. I took off the and got results. PBTF bob is in the security group. The goal was to figure out if a login is member of n-windows groups. This will show all auth paths for the given windows login (not a group) - how does this login get to the database (authority paths) EXEC master.xplogininfo @acctname = 'PBTF bob',@option = 'all' go btw if you grant auth to a group, every member of that group has the same rights to do things, wright?
I would advise to split groups for your dba/sysadmins and the service accounts that you are using. SQLserver will set the needed auth for its service accounts during the set/alter operation of these service accounts. The goal is to have minimal authorized settings in use. (keep doors closed) My guess is you should at least revise these: PBTF SvcSPContent - my guess to execute some type of sprocs PBTF SvcSPSearch - my guess to execute search sprocs PBTF SvcSPSQL - please don't let this be to execute dynamic sql. PBTF SvcSQL - my guess your 'regular' sqlserver service account (sqlserver will set the needed auth!) PBTF SvcSQLRS - my guess your regular Report Server service account (sqlserver will set the needed auth!) Johan Dont drive faster than your guardian angel can fly. But keeping both feet on the ground wont get you anywhere -press F1 for solution, press shift+F1 for urgent solution:-D Need a bit of Powershell?
How about Who am I? Paulc.byrum (3/29/2010) The description for Event ID ( 18456 ) in Source ( MSSQL$MICROSOFT##SSEE ) cannot be found. The local computer may not have the necessary registry information or message DLL files to display messages from a remote computer. The instance mentioned here is the SQL Server 2005 embedded edition or Internal database instance. Do not mess with this as it can break things. Also service packs,etc may overwrite objects in here. The correct command to connect to this instance is sqlcmd -S.
Pipe MSSQL$MICROSOFT##SSEE sql query –E it only uses named pipes. Can you confirm the instance name of the Sharepoint instance? - 'Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs';-). You can't post new topics. You can't post topic replies.
You can't post new polls. You can't post replies to polls. You can't edit your own topics. You can't delete your own topics. You can't edit other topics. You can't delete other topics.
You can't edit your own posts. You can't edit other posts. You can't delete your own posts. You can't delete other posts.
You can't post events. You can't edit your own events. You can't edit other events. You can't delete your own events.
You can't delete other events. You can't send private messages.
You can't send emails. You can read topics. You can't vote in polls. You can't upload attachments. You can download attachments. You can't post HTML code.
You can't edit HTML code. You can't post IFCode. You can't post JavaScript. You can post emoticons. You can't post or upload images.
Hi, I have an SBS 2008 environment with pretty default WSUS settings. After it has been running a while, the server appears to respond slowly and the disk churns continuously. The 2 default SQL instances (Microsoft##SSEE & SBSMONITORING) use all available free RAM, and upon restarting the services, disk churn seems to be significantly reduced. I'm aware SQL is designed to use all free RAM and release it quickly, but in this instance it doesn't seem to work.
So I figured out how to open SQL surface area management and make myself an admin to SBSMonitoring, connect to the DB with SQL Management Studio Express, and set the Max Memory properties to something suitable. I've tried to do the same for Microsoft##SSEE, but I can't see how to specify named pipes (np:. Pipe MSSQL$Microsoft##SSEE sql query) in Surface area management and it fails to log into the database instance to set users.
And Management Studio just tells me 'Login failed for user. Error: 18456' How do I get in to configure Microsoft##SSEE? The 'sa' account is not an option - WSUS, and it's database instance only support Integrated Windows Authentication. Dom doesn't say what account is being used - but in all likelihood, it's the local Administrator account that would be the starting point. Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009) OK, was using the Admin account created when installing SBS, but it just couldn't get in. Went into Active Directory User Management and enabled the Administrator account and set a password. Logged in and was able to modify the named pipe access to WSUS (np:.
Pipe MSSQL$Microsoft##SSEE sql query). I've seen an improvement in disk writes since doing SBSMONITORING, and in comparison WSUS never enlarged to fill all available RAM but I've changed it anyway. Thanks for your help, it got me straight onto the right track. Can you try with sa account? Edoardo Benussi - Microsoft® MVP Management Infrastructure - Systems Administration The 'sa' account is not an option - WSUS, and it's database instance only support Integrated Windows Authentication. Dom doesn't say what account is being used - but in all likelihood, it's the local Administrator account that would be the starting point. Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009).
Hi, take a look at this blog post hth Edoardo Benussi - Microsoft® MVP Management Infrastructure - Systems Administration Just a comment on the blog post. Noting, of course, that it comes from Susan, and also conceding that everything 'SBS' is always different than in the real world.
And I'm always hesitant to critique 'how its done on SBS'. But the fact is, and a point well worth considering - there's not a SQL Server DBA alive who would endorse configuring the Max Memory limit on a machine unless there was a really, really, really, really GOOD reason for doing so - and this ain't it! Frankly, in the example given.
Using 190MB RAM on a 1GB server - or even using the 390MB RAM that is shown as the Peak Value is.NOT. a good reason for setting that value. In fact, I'd be interested in a follow-up story, now that it's 20 months since the blog post was originally written - how much performance hit was seen by constraining a database instance that.needs. 384MB of RAM (worst case) down to 1/3 of it's peak utilization (128MB). My guess is that server got Slow as a Snail.
The.better. solution, even in Dec 2007, was to add another 1GB RAM to the machine.
But the real irony, is that with the database service only using 190MB RAM in this example - it's NOT the database service that's causing memory contention issues! (What you probably should look at on an SBS machine is a comparative analysis of the memory being used by Exchange 2003 and Windows Sharepoint Services.) In fact, Susan's assumption that the server performance issues were due to the database memory utilization are probably misguided to begin with. There's a.LOT. of stuff going on with an SBS2003 box - and it's much more likely that performance issues are as much CPU driven as they are RAM driven. The issue in the blog post, as in all performance evaluation scenarios - is that.ALL. aspects of performance must be evaluated before pulling the trigger on RAM and memory utlization as the cause.
I assure you a database service using 190MB RAM on a 1GB machine is not the culprit in a performance issue. In the instant case, the disk churn might be caused as much by plain old OS-level paging, doing the swap out between the 64-bit OS (SBS2008) and those 32-bit database instances (WID is a 32-bit only implementation, running under WoW64 on SBS2008).
The disk churn being 'reduced' upon restart of the services could be caused by any sort of situation - and it is not necessarily indicative of memory overconsumption. In fact, constraining the memory in this example may well also result in a decrease in performance, caused by an increase in Disk I/O brought about by reducing the size of the database service cache. Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009). Frankly, in the example given. Using 190MB RAM on a 1GB server - or even using the 390MB RAM that is shown as the Peak Value is.NOT. a good reason for setting that value.
In fact, I'd be interested in a follow-up story, now that it's 20 months since the blog post was originally written - how much performance hit was seen by constraining a database instance that.needs. 384MB of RAM (worst case) down to 1/3 of it's peak utilization (128MB). My guess is that server got Slow as a Snail. The.better. solution, even in Dec 2007, was to add another 1GB RAM to the machine. But the real irony, is that with the database service only using 190MB RAM in this example - it's NOT the database service that's causing memory contention issues! (What you probably should look at on an SBS machine is a comparative analysis of the memory being used by Exchange 2003 and Windows Sharepoint Services.) I'm perfectly agreed.
I've posted that link because i was assuming that the op had analyzed accurately his server and that 'limit memory' was the last solution. Edoardo Benussi - Microsoft® MVP Management Infrastructure - Systems Administration https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/Profile/Benussi. In the instant case, the disk churn might be caused as much by plain old OS-level paging, doing the swap out between the 64-bit OS (SBS2008) and those 32-bit database instances (WID is a 32-bit only implementation, running under WoW64 on SBS2008).
The disk churn being 'reduced' upon restart of the services could be caused by any sort of situation - and it is not necessarily indicative of memory overconsumption. In fact, constraining the memory in this example may well also result in a decrease in performance, caused by an increase in Disk I/O brought about by reducing the size of the database service cache. Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009) The only things running in SQL are: The SBS internal monitor, which is as slow as a dog on a Q9400 with 8GB RAM, without the limit. I don't give a rats if this slows down more, but it's not gonna cache 4+GB of RAM.
The WSUS system, which runs in the background and doesn't need speedy access to anything. 99% of the workload of this computer is file sharing, and having Windows or WOW64 or SQL or whatever spend all it's time churning does nothing for network resource performance.
Since limiting the SBS monitoring Max RAM, there appears to be approx 50% less churn. The 'sa' account is not an option - WSUS, and it's database instance only support Integrated Windows Authentication.
Dom doesn't say what account is being used - but in all likelihood, it's the local Administrator account that would be the starting point. Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP:EA, MCDBA Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009) OK, was using the Admin account created when installing SBS, but it just couldn't get in. Went into Active Directory User Management and enabled the Administrator account and set a password. Logged in and was able to modify the named pipe access to WSUS (np:.
Pipe MSSQL$Microsoft##SSEE sql query). I've seen an improvement in disk writes since doing SBSMONITORING, and in comparison WSUS never enlarged to fill all available RAM but I've changed it anyway. Thanks for your help, it got me straight onto the right track.