Is transaction log file reuseable after data file is Restored?

We have a database that is set to Simple recovery mode and is backed up
every night. The data files and sql server and OS files are on the same
disk and the log file is on a different disk. (There are no log file
backups.)
During the day the disk controller on the disk with the data files has
failed and has subsequently been replaced and is being restored from tape.
My question is: can the log file on the other (healty) disk be reliably used
to "replay" it's committed transactions into the restored database?
thanks,
Paul Ritchie.
No. When you restore the FULL Database backup, it will write over the
existing log file. Whatever transactions that were in the transaction log
when the backup was taken and committed will roll forward, all those that
had not committed will roll back. This is called recovery. You will end up
with a database in a state it was in when the backup was taken.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Paul Ritchie" <pritREMOVEchie@.xtREMOVEra.co.nzREMOVE> wrote in message
news:uqpOBmY4EHA.3368@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
We have a database that is set to Simple recovery mode and is backed up
every night. The data files and sql server and OS files are on the same
disk and the log file is on a different disk. (There are no log file
backups.)
During the day the disk controller on the disk with the data files has
failed and has subsequently been replaced and is being restored from tape.
My question is: can the log file on the other (healty) disk be reliably used
to "replay" it's committed transactions into the restored database?
thanks,
Paul Ritchie.
|||Thanks Anthony,
So we're saying that committed transactions in the log file of a database
set to 'Simple' recovery are of no use to anyone? (Except Lumigent Log
Explorer I guess!)
ie these are transactions that have occurred subsequent to the backup being
taken. The MDF file is lost and restored from backup and this perfectly
good record of the subsequent transactions is not able to be used?
Why keep them then?
cheers,
Paul.
"AnthonyThomas" <Anthony.Thomas@.CommerceBank.com> wrote in message
news:%23FLU0ha4EHA.936@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> No. When you restore the FULL Database backup, it will write over the
> existing log file. Whatever transactions that were in the transaction log
> when the backup was taken and committed will roll forward, all those that
> had not committed will roll back. This is called recovery. You will end
up
> with a database in a state it was in when the backup was taken.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> --
> "Paul Ritchie" <pritREMOVEchie@.xtREMOVEra.co.nzREMOVE> wrote in message
> news:uqpOBmY4EHA.3368@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> We have a database that is set to Simple recovery mode and is backed up
> every night. The data files and sql server and OS files are on the same
> disk and the log file is on a different disk. (There are no log file
> backups.)
> During the day the disk controller on the disk with the data files has
> failed and has subsequently been replaced and is being restored from tape.
> My question is: can the log file on the other (healty) disk be reliably
used
> to "replay" it's committed transactions into the restored database?
> thanks,
> Paul Ritchie.
>
|||"Paul Ritchie" <pritREMOVEchie@.xtREMOVEra.co.nzREMOVE> wrote in message
news:uYhlBvu4EHA.2196@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Anthony,
> So we're saying that committed transactions in the log file of a database
> set to 'Simple' recovery are of no use to anyone? (Except Lumigent Log
> Explorer I guess!)
>
Not even them. Committed transactions are deleted from the log file upon a
checkpoint in SIMPLE RECOVERY mode.
So, within minutes (or less) the log file no logner has that transaction
anymore.

> ie these are transactions that have occurred subsequent to the backup
being
> taken. The MDF file is lost and restored from backup and this perfectly
> good record of the subsequent transactions is not able to be used?
> Why keep them then?
In Simple mode they aren't kept.
In FULL they are and can be used.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> cheers,
> Paul.
> "AnthonyThomas" <Anthony.Thomas@.CommerceBank.com> wrote in message
> news:%23FLU0ha4EHA.936@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
log[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
end[vbcol=seagreen]
> up
tape.
> used
>
|||It is not for the COMMITTED transactions that the log files are used for.
Regardless of RECOVERY mode, it is the in process, non-committed, open
transactions that the log files are used for, without them, then there would
be no ROLLBACK during the reocvery process. This is the part of the ACID
properties that keeps the database consistent: if I pull money from one
account, it BETTER show up in another, viz., completely committed.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:PT7wd.1397$DQ3.1285@.twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Paul Ritchie" <pritREMOVEchie@.xtREMOVEra.co.nzREMOVE> wrote in message
news:uYhlBvu4EHA.2196@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Anthony,
> So we're saying that committed transactions in the log file of a database
> set to 'Simple' recovery are of no use to anyone? (Except Lumigent Log
> Explorer I guess!)
>
Not even them. Committed transactions are deleted from the log file upon a
checkpoint in SIMPLE RECOVERY mode.
So, within minutes (or less) the log file no logner has that transaction
anymore.

> ie these are transactions that have occurred subsequent to the backup
being
> taken. The MDF file is lost and restored from backup and this perfectly
> good record of the subsequent transactions is not able to be used?
> Why keep them then?
In Simple mode they aren't kept.
In FULL they are and can be used.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> cheers,
> Paul.
> "AnthonyThomas" <Anthony.Thomas@.CommerceBank.com> wrote in message
> news:%23FLU0ha4EHA.936@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
log[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
end[vbcol=seagreen]
> up
tape.
> used
>

Is transaction log file reuseable after data file is Restored?

We have a database that is set to Simple recovery mode and is backed up
every night. The data files and sql server and OS files are on the same
disk and the log file is on a different disk. (There are no log file
backups.)
During the day the disk controller on the disk with the data files has
failed and has subsequently been replaced and is being restored from tape.
My question is: can the log file on the other (healty) disk be reliably used
to "replay" it's committed transactions into the restored database?
thanks,
Paul Ritchie.No. When you restore the FULL Database backup, it will write over the
existing log file. Whatever transactions that were in the transaction log
when the backup was taken and committed will roll forward, all those that
had not committed will roll back. This is called recovery. You will end up
with a database in a state it was in when the backup was taken.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Paul Ritchie" <pritREMOVEchie@.xtREMOVEra.co.nzREMOVE> wrote in message
news:uqpOBmY4EHA.3368@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
We have a database that is set to Simple recovery mode and is backed up
every night. The data files and sql server and OS files are on the same
disk and the log file is on a different disk. (There are no log file
backups.)
During the day the disk controller on the disk with the data files has
failed and has subsequently been replaced and is being restored from tape.
My question is: can the log file on the other (healty) disk be reliably used
to "replay" it's committed transactions into the restored database?
thanks,
Paul Ritchie.|||Thanks Anthony,
So we're saying that committed transactions in the log file of a database
set to 'Simple' recovery are of no use to anyone? (Except Lumigent Log
Explorer I guess!)
ie these are transactions that have occurred subsequent to the backup being
taken. The MDF file is lost and restored from backup and this perfectly
good record of the subsequent transactions is not able to be used?
Why keep them then?
cheers,
Paul.
"AnthonyThomas" <Anthony.Thomas@.CommerceBank.com> wrote in message
news:%23FLU0ha4EHA.936@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> No. When you restore the FULL Database backup, it will write over the
> existing log file. Whatever transactions that were in the transaction log
> when the backup was taken and committed will roll forward, all those that
> had not committed will roll back. This is called recovery. You will end
up
> with a database in a state it was in when the backup was taken.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> --
> "Paul Ritchie" <pritREMOVEchie@.xtREMOVEra.co.nzREMOVE> wrote in message
> news:uqpOBmY4EHA.3368@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> We have a database that is set to Simple recovery mode and is backed up
> every night. The data files and sql server and OS files are on the same
> disk and the log file is on a different disk. (There are no log file
> backups.)
> During the day the disk controller on the disk with the data files has
> failed and has subsequently been replaced and is being restored from tape.
> My question is: can the log file on the other (healty) disk be reliably
used
> to "replay" it's committed transactions into the restored database?
> thanks,
> Paul Ritchie.
>|||"Paul Ritchie" <pritREMOVEchie@.xtREMOVEra.co.nzREMOVE> wrote in message
news:uYhlBvu4EHA.2196@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Anthony,
> So we're saying that committed transactions in the log file of a database
> set to 'Simple' recovery are of no use to anyone? (Except Lumigent Log
> Explorer I guess!)
>
Not even them. Committed transactions are deleted from the log file upon a
checkpoint in SIMPLE RECOVERY mode.
So, within minutes (or less) the log file no logner has that transaction
anymore.
> ie these are transactions that have occurred subsequent to the backup
being
> taken. The MDF file is lost and restored from backup and this perfectly
> good record of the subsequent transactions is not able to be used?
> Why keep them then?
In Simple mode they aren't kept.
In FULL they are and can be used.
> cheers,
> Paul.
> "AnthonyThomas" <Anthony.Thomas@.CommerceBank.com> wrote in message
> news:%23FLU0ha4EHA.936@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > No. When you restore the FULL Database backup, it will write over the
> > existing log file. Whatever transactions that were in the transaction
log
> > when the backup was taken and committed will roll forward, all those
that
> > had not committed will roll back. This is called recovery. You will
end
> up
> > with a database in a state it was in when the backup was taken.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> >
> > Anthony Thomas
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > "Paul Ritchie" <pritREMOVEchie@.xtREMOVEra.co.nzREMOVE> wrote in message
> > news:uqpOBmY4EHA.3368@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > We have a database that is set to Simple recovery mode and is backed up
> > every night. The data files and sql server and OS files are on the same
> > disk and the log file is on a different disk. (There are no log file
> > backups.)
> >
> > During the day the disk controller on the disk with the data files has
> > failed and has subsequently been replaced and is being restored from
tape.
> >
> > My question is: can the log file on the other (healty) disk be reliably
> used
> > to "replay" it's committed transactions into the restored database?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Paul Ritchie.
> >
> >
>|||It is not for the COMMITTED transactions that the log files are used for.
Regardless of RECOVERY mode, it is the in process, non-committed, open
transactions that the log files are used for, without them, then there would
be no ROLLBACK during the reocvery process. This is the part of the ACID
properties that keeps the database consistent: if I pull money from one
account, it BETTER show up in another, viz., completely committed.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:PT7wd.1397$DQ3.1285@.twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Paul Ritchie" <pritREMOVEchie@.xtREMOVEra.co.nzREMOVE> wrote in message
news:uYhlBvu4EHA.2196@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Anthony,
> So we're saying that committed transactions in the log file of a database
> set to 'Simple' recovery are of no use to anyone? (Except Lumigent Log
> Explorer I guess!)
>
Not even them. Committed transactions are deleted from the log file upon a
checkpoint in SIMPLE RECOVERY mode.
So, within minutes (or less) the log file no logner has that transaction
anymore.
> ie these are transactions that have occurred subsequent to the backup
being
> taken. The MDF file is lost and restored from backup and this perfectly
> good record of the subsequent transactions is not able to be used?
> Why keep them then?
In Simple mode they aren't kept.
In FULL they are and can be used.
> cheers,
> Paul.
> "AnthonyThomas" <Anthony.Thomas@.CommerceBank.com> wrote in message
> news:%23FLU0ha4EHA.936@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > No. When you restore the FULL Database backup, it will write over the
> > existing log file. Whatever transactions that were in the transaction
log
> > when the backup was taken and committed will roll forward, all those
that
> > had not committed will roll back. This is called recovery. You will
end
> up
> > with a database in a state it was in when the backup was taken.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> >
> > Anthony Thomas
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > "Paul Ritchie" <pritREMOVEchie@.xtREMOVEra.co.nzREMOVE> wrote in message
> > news:uqpOBmY4EHA.3368@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > We have a database that is set to Simple recovery mode and is backed up
> > every night. The data files and sql server and OS files are on the same
> > disk and the log file is on a different disk. (There are no log file
> > backups.)
> >
> > During the day the disk controller on the disk with the data files has
> > failed and has subsequently been replaced and is being restored from
tape.
> >
> > My question is: can the log file on the other (healty) disk be reliably
> used
> > to "replay" it's committed transactions into the restored database?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Paul Ritchie.
> >
> >
>sql

Is this a bug?

RS 2005 (SQL 2005 SP1).

When you edit the ASP.Net tab (in IIS) for the ReportServer folder and change the Authentication Mode from Windows to None the Report Server will bomb out. Trying to open th ereportserver returns "Report Server is not responding, verify the report server is running and can be accessed from this computer".

Changing it back to "Windows" makes no difference, even re-starting the Reporting Service and IIS makes no difference, the report server will not respond.

Can some one test this?

I ended up having to re-install RS 2005....!!

What does the venet log / the logs in the log directory tell you ?

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de|||

In the SQLDUMPER_ERRORLog.log file there wass this..

07/13/06 12:53:35, ERROR , SQLDUMPER_UNKNOWN_APP.EXE, AdjustTokenPrivileges () failed (00000514)
07/13/06 12:53:35, ACTION, SQLDUMPER_UNKNOWN_APP.EXE, Input parameters: 4 supplied
07/13/06 12:53:35, ACTION, SQLDUMPER_UNKNOWN_APP.EXE, ProcessID = 328
07/13/06 12:53:35, ACTION, SQLDUMPER_UNKNOWN_APP.EXE, ThreadId = 0
07/13/06 12:53:35, ACTION, SQLDUMPER_UNKNOWN_APP.EXE, Flags = 0x0
07/13/06 12:53:35, ACTION, SQLDUMPER_UNKNOWN_APP.EXE, MiniDumpFlags = 0x0
07/13/06 12:53:35, ACTION, SQLDUMPER_UNKNOWN_APP.EXE, SqlInfoPtr = 0x47405860
07/13/06 12:53:35, ACTION, SQLDUMPER_UNKNOWN_APP.EXE, DumpDir = <NULL>
07/13/06 12:53:35, ACTION, SQLDUMPER_UNKNOWN_APP.EXE, ExceptionRecordPtr = 0x00000000
07/13/06 12:53:35, ACTION, SQLDUMPER_UNKNOWN_APP.EXE, ContextPtr = 0x00000000
07/13/06 12:53:35, ACTION, SQLDUMPER_UNKNOWN_APP.EXE, ExtraFile = <NULL>
07/13/06 12:53:35, ACTION, SQLDUMPER_UNKNOWN_APP.EXE, InstanceName = <NULL>
07/13/06 12:53:35, ACTION, SQLDUMPER_UNKNOWN_APP.EXE, ServiceName = <NULL>
07/13/06 12:53:36, ACTION, SQLDUMPER_UNKNOWN_APP.EXE, Callback type 11 not used
07/13/06 12:53:37, ACTION, SQLDUMPER_UNKNOWN_APP.EXE, Callback type 7 not used
07/13/06 12:53:37, ACTION, SQLDUMPER_UNKNOWN_APP.EXE, MiniDump completed: C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.2\Reporting Services\LogFiles\SQLDmpr0001.mdmp
07/13/06 12:53:37, ACTION, w3wp.exe, Watson Invoke: No

|||Is the report service running after that bug ? What does the reportserver log tell you ? Are there any event log entries ? It would be helpful to have all event log (at leat the last entries) to identify the bug.

HTH, jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de
|||

Yes the report service was running after this.

Did you try to replicate the problem (on a test machine of course)....

|||

Hey, niallhannon,

I have read some of your posting and found out that you had most of the problems with the report service I have now, I wonder if you have set up the sample reports from Microsoft.

I am setting up the sample report on the testing server and I have problems with deploying to the http://myserver/reportserver and it gave the the following error, see if you can provide some tips to me:

TITLE: Microsoft Report Designer

A connection could not be made to the report server http://10.128.64.223/reportserver.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Client found response content type of 'text/html; charset=utf-8', but expected 'text/xml'.
The request failed with the error message:
--
<html>
<head>
<title>
SQL Server Reporting Services
</title><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services 9.00.1399.00" />
<meta name="HTTP Status" content="500" />
<meta name="ProductLocaleID" content="9" />
<meta name="CountryLocaleID" content="1033" />
<meta name="StackTrace" content />
<style>
BODY {FONT-FAMILY:Verdana; FONT-WEIGHT:normal; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR:black}
H1 {FONT-FAMILY:Verdana; FONT-WEIGHT:700; FONT-SIZE:15pt}
LI {FONT-FAMILY:Verdana; FONT-WEIGHT:normal; FONT-SIZE:8pt; DISPLAY:inline}
.ProductInfo {FONT-FAMILY:Verdana; FONT-WEIGHT:bold; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR:gray}
A:link {FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY:Verdana; COLOR:#3366CC; TEXT-DECORATION:none}
A:hover {FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY:Verdana; COLOR:#FF3300; TEXT-DECORATION:underline}
A:visited {FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY:Verdana; COLOR:#3366CC; TEXT-DECORATION:none}
A:visited:hover {FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY:Verdana; color:#FF3300; TEXT-DECORATION:underline}

</style>
</head><body bgcolor="white">
<h1>
Reporting Services Error<hr width="100%" size="1" color="silver" />
</h1><ul>
<li>An internal error occurred on the report server. See the error log for more details. (rsInternalError) <a href="http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=20476&EvtSrc=Microsoft.ReportingServices.Diagnostics.Utilities.ErrorStrings&EvtID=rsInternalError&ProdName=Microsoft%20SQL%20Server%20Reporting%20Services&ProdVer=9.00.1399.00" target="_blank">Get Online Help</a></li><ul>
<li>Object reference not set to an instance of an object.</li>
</ul>
</ul><hr width="100%" size="1" color="silver" /><span class="ProductInfo">SQL Server Reporting Services</span>
</body>
</html>
--. (Microsoft.ReportingServices.Designer)

BUTTONS:

OK

Is there any way to deploy an SSIS Package (File Mode) to an App Server without SQL Instance?

We would like to deploy SSIS packages as an ETL Tool to an appserver that does not have SQL Server 2005 installed. Is this possible, or does it HAVE to be executed on the server with SQL 2005 installed?

Kevin
SQL Server (the database engine) doesn't have to be installed. However, you will need to install the SSIS full client (from the SQL Server installation media) and have a valid SQL Server license for that machine.|||

What Phil said is true that you can do this, however, there are other considerations on why you may not want to.

One main reason is if you are moving large amount of data through SSIS. If you have it on a seperate machine:

[Source Machine] - - - large amount of data - - > [SSIS machine] - - - large amoutn of data - - > [destination machine]

VS

[Source Machine] - - - large amount of data - - > [SSIS/Desitination machine]

As you can see, you will be moving large sets of data accross your network twice.

Is there any max concurrent connections for SQL 2005?

If I pick up server+CAL mode, then for each user/device which has license, is
there any max concurrent connections?
jinshuang,
A client who has a valid CAL may connect as many times as needed to the
server or servers he can access.
RLF
"jinshuang" <jinshuang@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:110BB0C8-9121-472F-A303-283FA5733B4F@.microsoft.com...
> If I pick up server+CAL mode, then for each user/device which has license,
> is
> there any max concurrent connections?

Is there any max concurrent connections for SQL 2005?

If I pick up server+CAL mode, then for each user/device which has license, is
there any max concurrent connections?jinshuang,
A client who has a valid CAL may connect as many times as needed to the
server or servers he can access.
RLF
"jinshuang" <jinshuang@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:110BB0C8-9121-472F-A303-283FA5733B4F@.microsoft.com...
> If I pick up server+CAL mode, then for each user/device which has license,
> is
> there any max concurrent connections?

Is there any disadvantage to running a SQL Server in Windows Authentication mode only?

Gurus,
Is there any disadvantage to running a SQL Server in Windows Authentication
mode only?
--
SpinI actually prefer to run in Windows Only mode. I do switch down to mixed mode when I have to, though
(typically some darn app that doesn't support Windows login or Windows login cannot be used because
of firewall/domain reasons).
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Spin" <Spin@.invalid.com> wrote in message news:63v8k4F28datlU1@.mid.individual.net...
> Gurus,
> Is there any disadvantage to running a SQL Server in Windows Authentication mode only?
> --
> Spin
>|||"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:9DCDECEE-E65A-4244-B5D2-F3EBA33B12DE@.microsoft.com...
>I actually prefer to run in Windows Only mode. I do switch down to mixed
>mode when I have to, though (typically some darn app that doesn't support
>Windows login or Windows login cannot be used because of firewall/domain
>reasons).
Thanks TIbor. What makes you prefer to run in Windows Only mode?|||> Thanks TIbor. What makes you prefer to run in Windows Only mode?
One more set of accounts that cannot be used. I.e., even though SQL logins can exist when SQL Server
run in Windows Only mode, nobody can login using a SQL Server login. And since we've only recently
have the ability to specify password aging, complexity rules etc for SQL logins, I prefer if it
isn't possible to login at all using SQL logins - if the surroindings allow this.
Just imagne the nimber if times I've heard, when consuting "Yo! You have the password to sa?". ;-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Spin" <Spin@.invalid.com> wrote in message news:644iknF29vlr1U1@.mid.individual.net...
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:9DCDECEE-E65A-4244-B5D2-F3EBA33B12DE@.microsoft.com...
>>I actually prefer to run in Windows Only mode. I do switch down to mixed mode when I have to,
>>though (typically some darn app that doesn't support Windows login or Windows login cannot be used
>>because of firewall/domain reasons).
> Thanks TIbor. What makes you prefer to run in Windows Only mode?|||Hello,
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> I actually prefer to run in Windows Only mode. I do switch down to mixed mode when I have to, though
But what in bellow situation:
Two active directory domains CompanyA.local (NetworkA) and CompanyB.local
(NetworkB).
NetworkA and NetworkB connected by VPN.
NetworkA:
srvsql.CompanyA.local
NetworkB:
srvsql.CompanyB.local
All ports open between srvsql.CompanyA.local and srvsql.CompanyB.local, no
firewall.
I have DOMAIN ADMIN account on each domain CompanyA\me, CompanyB\me,
unfortunately I can't connect to srvsql.CompanyB.local from
srvsql.CompanyA.local by WindowsAuthentication, I'm using SQl Logins and this
works.
How use WindowsAuthentication in this situation, where is the problem?
Regards,
anxcomp|||I can think of one, because I have been limited by it before: consultants
cannot connect to the database with their laptop's, which in my case has 10+
years of acquired tools, scripts and knowledge stored on it. And no, I will
not ever connect my laptop up to another's domain.
--
Kevin G. Boles
Indicium Resources, Inc.
SQL Server MVP
kgboles a earthlink dt net
"Spin" <Spin@.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:63v8k4F28datlU1@.mid.individual.net...
> Gurus,
> Is there any disadvantage to running a SQL Server in Windows
> Authentication mode only?
> --
> Spin
>|||Good point, Kevin! I also recognize me so very more productive when I can work from my own machine
against customer instances.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message news:13u0cqrefkor83@.corp.supernews.com...
>I can think of one, because I have been limited by it before: consultants cannot connect to the
>database with their laptop's, which in my case has 10+ years of acquired tools, scripts and
>knowledge stored on it. And no, I will not ever connect my laptop up to another's domain.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> SQL Server MVP
> kgboles a earthlink dt net
>
> "Spin" <Spin@.invalid.com> wrote in message news:63v8k4F28datlU1@.mid.individual.net...
>> Gurus,
>> Is there any disadvantage to running a SQL Server in Windows Authentication mode only?
>> --
>> Spin
>

Is there any disadvantage to running a SQL Server in Windows Authentication mode only?

Gurus,
Is there any disadvantage to running a SQL Server in Windows Authentication
mode only?
Spin
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:9DCDECEE-E65A-4244-B5D2-F3EBA33B12DE@.microsoft.com...
>I actually prefer to run in Windows Only mode. I do switch down to mixed
>mode when I have to, though (typically some darn app that doesn't support
>Windows login or Windows login cannot be used because of firewall/domain
>reasons).
Thanks TIbor. What makes you prefer to run in Windows Only mode?
|||Hello,
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> I actually prefer to run in Windows Only mode. I do switch down to mixed mode when I have to, though
But what in bellow situation:
Two active directory domains CompanyA.local (NetworkA) and CompanyB.local
(NetworkB).
NetworkA and NetworkB connected by VPN.
NetworkA:
srvsql.CompanyA.local
NetworkB:
srvsql.CompanyB.local
All ports open between srvsql.CompanyA.local and srvsql.CompanyB.local, no
firewall.
I have DOMAIN ADMIN account on each domain CompanyA\me, CompanyB\me,
unfortunately I can't connect to srvsql.CompanyB.local from
srvsql.CompanyA.local by WindowsAuthentication, I'm using SQl Logins and this
works.
How use WindowsAuthentication in this situation, where is the problem?
Regards,
anxcomp
|||I can think of one, because I have been limited by it before: consultants
cannot connect to the database with their laptop's, which in my case has 10+
years of acquired tools, scripts and knowledge stored on it. And no, I will
not ever connect my laptop up to another's domain.
Kevin G. Boles
Indicium Resources, Inc.
SQL Server MVP
kgboles a earthlink dt net
"Spin" <Spin@.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:63v8k4F28datlU1@.mid.individual.net...
> Gurus,
> Is there any disadvantage to running a SQL Server in Windows
> Authentication mode only?
> --
> Spin
>