|
SQL Servers are discovered using the NetBIOS browse mechanism, IIRC. Try the browstat command:
C:\Documents and Settings\mike.dimmick>browstat view 1 corp
Remoting NetServerEnum to \\IAD-PC on transport \Device\NetBT_Tcpip_{EFDF994C-74
B8-42EC-BBA4-30FB07E6E6D1} with flags ffffffff
4 entries returned. 4 total. 20 milliseconds
\\5D-DOMAIN NT 05.00 (W,S,PDC,TS,DL,NT,MBR,02000000)
\\IAD-PC NT 05.01 (W,S,NT,PBR,BBR) Ian's PC
\\MIKESPC NT 05.00 (W,S,PQ,NT,PBR)
\\SH-DELL NT 05.01 (W,S,SQL,PQ,NT,PBR) Simon's LaptopAn 'SQL' entry indicates that SQL Server is running.
If it takes a long time to find out whether a server is running or not, it probably means that browsing is broken on your network. It doesn't work terribly well in a non-domain environment, we've found, particularly if the master browser shuts down. You might find that running browstat tickle will sort out the browser tables.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Dimmick wrote:
SQL Servers are discovered using the NetBIOS browse mechanism
Interesting throwback for Win2K. I tried the browstat command - it's not recognized by the OS. But it's still a useful clue. I routinely block NetBIOS traffic at the firewall, so this may be contributing to the problem. Oddly, though, this didn't occur before I had to re-install SQL Server 7, and my firewall settings didn't change. Thanks for some good clues.
"Your village called -
They're missing their idiot."
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, it looks like it's sending some message to your workgroup, but only sends to the primary workgroup. My PC here is on our domain, but the migration has stalled. The status display works for servers on the domain, but not on the workgroup (even though I've sorted out the browsing on the workgroup).
browstat is part of the Windows 2000 Support Tools, which are on your Windows CD (the SUPPORT\TOOLS folder, IIRC).
|
|
|
|
|
Found it. It looks to be far more handy for workgroups than domains, and this PC is a domain of one. Thanks for the reminder, though - I'd forgotten about that Support Tools folder. There's lots of goodies in there!
"Your village called -
They're missing their idiot."
|
|
|
|
|
Hi.
Does anyone know how can I set the SNMP agent to send trap on CPU in windows OS using Windows SNMP service.
Example : I need that SNMP agent will send trap if CPU > 80% for X seconds.
Is there built in windows possibility to do that , or do I have to write my own code?
Thank.
|
|
|
|
|
I've got two WinXP Pro machines copying a few gigs of data over the network (100mbps, with switch), and it's going *incredibly* slowly... 
Any tips for things that could be the problem? TIA 
Paul 
That demands capital punishment!! Death by a herd of marauding Bobs! - Ryan Binns
modified 18-Jul-18 11:59am.
|
|
|
|
|
No more tears
Paul
That demands capital punishment!! Death by a herd of marauding Bobs! - Ryan Binns
modified 18-Jul-18 11:59am.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul van der Walt wrote:
No more tears
I take it means you solved it. If so can you explain how.
My initial thoughts would have been that your NIC(s) were set to full duplex while your switch was set to half (or is that the other way around) which is causing huge amounts of collisions. Did you make a change on the switch or NIC?
Michael Martin
Australia
"I suspect I will be impressed though, I am easy."
- Paul Watson 21/09/2003
|
|
|
|
|
A surprisingly low-tech solution actually: as it turns out, the WinMX fileshare client is rather heavy on network resources 
Paul
That demands capital punishment!! Death by a herd of marauding Bobs! - Ryan Binns
modified 18-Jul-18 11:59am.
|
|
|
|
|
wrong forum!
Don't try it, just do it!
|
|
|
|
|
Wrong retort 
Paul
That demands capital punishment!! Death by a herd of marauding Bobs! - Ryan Binns
modified 18-Jul-18 11:59am.
|
|
|
|
|
This Alexander guy seems to have a problem with you
Matt Newman
If you chose to continue this discussion, I am fully prepared to make you my bitch. I invite you to ask around, and you'll find out that I'm quite capable of doing so - John Simmons on Trolls
|
|
|
|
|
i don't have problems with anyone...
Don't try it, just do it!
|
|
|
|
|
Alexander M. wrote:
i don't have problems with anyone...
I've been reviewing your posts in all the forums, and that seems to be true. You appear to have a problem with everyone, not anyone. I'd like to slam you for your inexcusably rude behavior here, but I can't - you have posted some really valuable stuff which has helped a lot of people, and that's what this site is all about. Good job!
I encourage you to continue your valuable contributions to this site - you're an asset to us, without a doubt. But keep in mind that there are many of us who are here to learn, and your childish attempts at humiliating people are not helpful to anyone. We don't want to lose your obvious expertise, but we can certainly do without your obnoxious posts that attack our long-time members.
Cool it, kid, and let yourself be assimilated. We're a nice bunch, and it wont hurt a bit...
"Your village called -
They're missing their idiot."
|
|
|
|
|
Well said!
Matt Newman
If you chose to continue this discussion, I am fully prepared to make you my bitch. I invite you to ask around, and you'll find out that I'm quite capable of doing so - John Simmons on Trolls
|
|
|
|
|
I guess that correspondence course in Tact was worth the effort...
"Your village called -
They're missing their idiot."
|
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to set up my PC to be accessible from the internet, but haven't had any luck so far. On my router (NAT) I've got port tcp3389 forwarding to my computer, but when I try and connect from the outside I get a vague error. Are there any other ports that need forwarding too, or am I missing something else? Suggestions? TIA 
Paul 
That demands capital punishment!! Death by a herd of marauding Bobs! - Ryan Binns
modified 18-Jul-18 11:59am.
|
|
|
|
|
wrong forum again, please leave!
Don't try it, just do it!
|
|
|
|
|
Where do you suggest I post a question about Terminal Services? To the best of my knowledge the SysAdmin is the best place to post a question about administering a terminal services server... or not?
Paul
That demands capital punishment!! Death by a herd of marauding Bobs! - Ryan Binns
modified 18-Jul-18 11:59am.
|
|
|
|
|
Ignore it, Paul. This is the right forum for anything related to system issues, and the closest thing we've got to a general PC OS/hardware/networking forum. It's evolved over the years into a broader scope than I think Chris originally intended, but these things tend to have a life of their own.
BTW - What port is the outside computer using to contact yours? Http, Ftp, and Telnet all have default ports they use, and there may some additional mapping you need to do in your NAT device to enable the port used for TS from incoming packets. Some devices also need to be configured for specific traffic types - TCP, UDP, ICMP, etc.
"Your village called -
They're missing their idiot."
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Wright wrote:
Ignore it, Paul
Yah, no problem 
Roger Wright wrote:
What port is the outside computer using to contact yours?
Well, two ports are mapped, and to different computers. I've got tcp80 mapped to my webserver, where I've got a web-based terminal services client running (I don't think it's the hassle), and I've got tcp3389 (specified on NAT on router) mapped to my pc, which is the terminal services port. All the documents I've found on internet seem to suggest that 3389 is the only port you need.
Paul
That demands capital punishment!! Death by a herd of marauding Bobs! - Ryan Binns
modified 18-Jul-18 11:59am.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul van der Walt wrote:
All the documents I've found on internet seem to suggest that 3389 is the only port you need.
I've done it with just 3389
Matt Newman
If you chose to continue this discussion, I am fully prepared to make you my bitch. I invite you to ask around, and you'll find out that I'm quite capable of doing so - John Simmons on Trolls
|
|
|
|
|
Strange, that doesn't seem to work for me 
Paul
That demands capital punishment!! Death by a herd of marauding Bobs! - Ryan Binns
modified 18-Jul-18 11:59am.
|
|
|
|
|
Try a
telnet your.machine.ip.address 3389
This will help to detect if the problem is with the connection or with Terminal Services itself.
Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet.
-- Bruce Schneier
By the way, dog_spawn isn't a nickname - it is my name with an underscore instead of a space. -- dog_spawn
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Daniel, sorry about the long delay - the notification email must've got lost in the woodwork somewhere
The problem is definitely not with the TS server, seeing I can connect on my local network. I haven't had a chance to test yet, but I've changed it to another port, because maybe it is as Matt suggested that the ISP blocks that port.
Thanks
Paul
Open the fridge door, scream, and everything that doesn't run into the corner is safe for eating. - Jörgen Sigvardsson
modified 18-Jul-18 11:59am.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
