PPV's, Loops & Child Packages - Bug or By Design

It would appear that if a Child package is called more than once from a Parent using the 'Execute Package' task, then after the first execute the Parent Package Variables are not applied to child package. I.E we build dimensions in a master database and these are then loaded to a number of topic specific datamarts. We simply pass Parent variables to the child that hold source & target connection strings, the first time the package is called the correct database is accessed, subsequent Executes ignore the variables and use the original values. Manipulating the (our) event queue to run the package once results in the correct behaviour

Are packages cached when they are called from a Parent? if so is there a flag that I have missed to force a reload each time a child is executed?

This has just become a big problen for us so any guidance would greatly appreciated.

Paul

I have not come across this problem before. I suggest opening a support issue for this - it will likely need some debugging.

How are you calling the child package multiple times? In a loop?

Donald

|||

Our master package is data driven, from a database.

Dimensions are build / modified in a Master database and then are moved into a number of topic specific datamarts. A dimension like CALENDAR natutally resides in most datamarts, we have a series of packages (one per Dimension) that are reponsible for moving new/changed data to the datamart (they are lightening quick). The child packages take 2 Parent variables SourceConnectionString and TargetConnectionString, these child packages are called from the parent package using the 'Execute Package' task.

This approach has worked well untill we got to serious testing of the system. When the Parent package runs properly it is quite likely that the calendar will move to several places in one execution. The first call to the Child package uses the parent variables correctly, subsequent calls to the child (event if 10 or 15 other packages have been called in the meantime) ignore the new settings of the variables and continue to adress the first datamart setting, consequently we have missing rows, the package does not fail, so the dependancy is met (we have dependacy info in our metadata) and the the Fact build crashes due to missing rows.

This serious stuff for us, we aim to go live at the end of this month

I too may have to hand over the armband....

Paul

|||

I do think you'll need to open a support call for the original issue.

However, I wonder if you could work around this. One way may be to use a different configuration type, such as SQL Server, or registry setting or environment variable.

Your master package could use a script to write out the value to that location and child packages would pick it up from there.

This would be very similar to using the parameter files that other ETL tools use for these scenarios.

Donald

If you do have to hand over the armband, try not to cry about it on TV.

|||

Sorry, my fault.

The orginal version of the package was using Event Handlers, I removed these some time ago, but missed one which was setting an action as complete. So no bug in SSIS just my carlessness.

Just a thought, it would be really nice if icons on the design surface had some indication that and Event Handler was lurking underneath.

Paul

|||

Fantastic idea. You should log it at Microsoft Connect.

It would also be great if there were a visual clue that properties had expressions on them!

-Jamie

Posts that are posted does not appear in the posted list

Hi,
I have posted a query in this newsgroup 5 hours ago and the post has not yet appeared in the list of posts.
Any suggestions?
Thanks
I see several posts from you about deploying MSDE. My suggestion? Use a
real newsreader.
http://www.aspfaq.com/5007
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"sm" <sm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2C8A1929-4674-43ED-AD1F-8C46065F0ACB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have posted a query in this newsgroup 5 hours ago and the post has not
yet appeared in the list of posts.
> Any suggestions?
> Thanks

Possible to locate active trans. log on different computer?

It does not appear possible to locate the active transaction log on a
computer other than the one on which the DB exists. Am I correct? Is there
no way to isolate the log from the box on which the data exists?
Thanks,
Randy NeallThere's an undocumented trace flag that allows you to do this. I don't
remember it off the top of my head, but I don't recommend it unless you're
in a well configured SAN environment. Even then it's not always the best
idea...
Brian Moran
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in message
news:epOxPqZnDHA.2404@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> It does not appear possible to locate the active transaction log on a
> computer other than the one on which the DB exists. Am I correct? Is there
> no way to isolate the log from the box on which the data exists?
> Thanks,
> Randy Neall
>|||That's not possible and you don't want to do that, even if
you could.
Linchi
>--Original Message--
>It does not appear possible to locate the active
transaction log on a
>computer other than the one on which the DB exists. Am I
correct? Is there
>no way to isolate the log from the box on which the data
exists?
>Thanks,
>Randy Neall
>
>.
>|||Thanks, Brian for pointing this out! I totally forgot
about this trace flag. The trace flag is 1807, and KB
article is
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=304261
Linchi
>--Original Message--
>There's an undocumented trace flag that allows you to do
this. I don't
>remember it off the top of my head, but I don't recommend
it unless you're
>in a well configured SAN environment. Even then it's not
always the best
>idea...
>
>--
>Brian Moran
>Principal Mentor
>Solid Quality Learning
>SQL Server MVP
>http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
>
>"Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com>
wrote in message
>news:epOxPqZnDHA.2404@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> It does not appear possible to locate the active
transaction log on a
>> computer other than the one on which the DB exists. Am
I correct? Is there
>> no way to isolate the log from the box on which the
data exists?
>> Thanks,
>> Randy Neall
>>
>
>.
>|||Hi Brian,
Why isn't this a good idea? The idea I had was to get the log and backups on
a completely separate box for added redundancy, saving us even if the DB box
were somehow destroyed, stolen, or if more than one drive within the DB box
failed. But you suggest, and Linchi confirms, this is a bad idea. Why?
Randy
"Brian Moran" <brian@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
news:OqOsUyZnDHA.1708@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> There's an undocumented trace flag that allows you to do this. I don't
> remember it off the top of my head, but I don't recommend it unless you're
> in a well configured SAN environment. Even then it's not always the best
> idea...
>
> --
> Brian Moran
> Principal Mentor
> Solid Quality Learning
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
>
> "Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in message
> news:epOxPqZnDHA.2404@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > It does not appear possible to locate the active transaction log on a
> > computer other than the one on which the DB exists. Am I correct? Is
there
> > no way to isolate the log from the box on which the data exists?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Randy Neall
> >
> >
>|||SQL Server log files are absolutely critical for database integrity.
Physical writes to log files must be guaranteed or committed data can be
lost and/or physical database corruption result. Standard network i/o
does not guarantee these writes and the loss of a single packet can be
disastrous. You'll need to be prepared to restore from backup in the
event of a simple network outage.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
--
SQL FAQ links (courtesy Neil Pike):
http://www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?DepartmentID=800
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq
--
"Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in message
news:uatwTCcnDHA.3304@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi Brian,
> Why isn't this a good idea? The idea I had was to get the log and
backups on
> a completely separate box for added redundancy, saving us even if the
DB box
> were somehow destroyed, stolen, or if more than one drive within the
DB box
> failed. But you suggest, and Linchi confirms, this is a bad idea. Why?
> Randy
> "Brian Moran" <brian@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
> news:OqOsUyZnDHA.1708@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > There's an undocumented trace flag that allows you to do this. I
don't
> > remember it off the top of my head, but I don't recommend it unless
you're
> > in a well configured SAN environment. Even then it's not always the
best
> > idea...
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Brian Moran
> > Principal Mentor
> > Solid Quality Learning
> > SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
> >
> >
> > "Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in
message
> > news:epOxPqZnDHA.2404@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > It does not appear possible to locate the active transaction log
on a
> > > computer other than the one on which the DB exists. Am I correct?
Is
> there
> > > no way to isolate the log from the box on which the data exists?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Randy Neall
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Thanks. Yes you've helped a lot. I hadn't thought of the risks of network
failure.
Randy
"Dan Guzman" <danguzman@.nospam-earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u1Ki88cnDHA.708@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> SQL Server log files are absolutely critical for database integrity.
> Physical writes to log files must be guaranteed or committed data can be
> lost and/or physical database corruption result. Standard network i/o
> does not guarantee these writes and the loss of a single packet can be
> disastrous. You'll need to be prepared to restore from backup in the
> event of a simple network outage.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> --
> SQL FAQ links (courtesy Neil Pike):
> http://www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?DepartmentID=800
> http://www.sqlserverfaq.com
> http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq
> --
> "Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in message
> news:uatwTCcnDHA.3304@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > Why isn't this a good idea? The idea I had was to get the log and
> backups on
> > a completely separate box for added redundancy, saving us even if the
> DB box
> > were somehow destroyed, stolen, or if more than one drive within the
> DB box
> > failed. But you suggest, and Linchi confirms, this is a bad idea. Why?
> >
> > Randy
> >
> > "Brian Moran" <brian@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
> > news:OqOsUyZnDHA.1708@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > There's an undocumented trace flag that allows you to do this. I
> don't
> > > remember it off the top of my head, but I don't recommend it unless
> you're
> > > in a well configured SAN environment. Even then it's not always the
> best
> > > idea...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Brian Moran
> > > Principal Mentor
> > > Solid Quality Learning
> > > SQL Server MVP
> > > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
> > >
> > >
> > > "Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in
> message
> > > news:epOxPqZnDHA.2404@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > It does not appear possible to locate the active transaction log
> on a
> > > > computer other than the one on which the DB exists. Am I correct?
> Is
> > there
> > > > no way to isolate the log from the box on which the data exists?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Randy Neall
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||> Why isn't this a good idea?
Did you read the KB article? As I remember, it is pretty clear on the subject.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in message
news:uatwTCcnDHA.3304@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi Brian,
> Why isn't this a good idea? The idea I had was to get the log and backups on
> a completely separate box for added redundancy, saving us even if the DB box
> were somehow destroyed, stolen, or if more than one drive within the DB box
> failed. But you suggest, and Linchi confirms, this is a bad idea. Why?
> Randy
> "Brian Moran" <brian@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
> news:OqOsUyZnDHA.1708@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > There's an undocumented trace flag that allows you to do this. I don't
> > remember it off the top of my head, but I don't recommend it unless you're
> > in a well configured SAN environment. Even then it's not always the best
> > idea...
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Brian Moran
> > Principal Mentor
> > Solid Quality Learning
> > SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
> >
> >
> > "Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in message
> > news:epOxPqZnDHA.2404@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > It does not appear possible to locate the active transaction log on a
> > > computer other than the one on which the DB exists. Am I correct? Is
> there
> > > no way to isolate the log from the box on which the data exists?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Randy Neall
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||I just did. You're right. It's clear. Thanks
Randy
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor.please_reply_to_public_forum.karaszi@.cornerstone.se>
wrote in message news:ODUsa4enDHA.3304@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Why isn't this a good idea?
> Did you read the KB article? As I remember, it is pretty clear on the
subject.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
>
> "Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in message
> news:uatwTCcnDHA.3304@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > Why isn't this a good idea? The idea I had was to get the log and
backups on
> > a completely separate box for added redundancy, saving us even if the DB
box
> > were somehow destroyed, stolen, or if more than one drive within the DB
box
> > failed. But you suggest, and Linchi confirms, this is a bad idea. Why?
> >
> > Randy
> >
> > "Brian Moran" <brian@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
> > news:OqOsUyZnDHA.1708@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > There's an undocumented trace flag that allows you to do this. I don't
> > > remember it off the top of my head, but I don't recommend it unless
you're
> > > in a well configured SAN environment. Even then it's not always the
best
> > > idea...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Brian Moran
> > > Principal Mentor
> > > Solid Quality Learning
> > > SQL Server MVP
> > > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
> > >
> > >
> > > "Randolph Neall" <randolphneall@.veracitycomputing.com> wrote in
message
> > > news:epOxPqZnDHA.2404@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > It does not appear possible to locate the active transaction log on
a
> > > > computer other than the one on which the DB exists. Am I correct? Is
> > there
> > > > no way to isolate the log from the box on which the data exists?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Randy Neall
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Possible to Limit the Export Formats

Is it possible to limit the export formats from the Report Viewer control? Specifically the options that appear in the dropdown box. I'm using it in an ASP.NET environment (RTM) and remote mode of the ReportViewer control.
In remote mode, we can edit the rsreportserver.config file on the Report Server to limit the available export formats but that will enforce for all the reporting applications running on that machine.
Can we restrict it for one of the reporting application deployed on the reporting Services and not for all?

Unfortunately the list is not customizable. You can, however, hide the dropdown entirely and add your own to the form that includes only the formats you want. You can programmatically access to all available rendering extensions through ReportViewer.LocalReport.Render().