September 13, 2006 at 8:45 am
Everyone in I/T don't like auditor, right. Recently, out auditor told us we can not use default port for SQL server as it subject to attack. It also told us we should use name instance instead of default instance. Now, my headache started...
I noticed it seems very in-consistence, when we set NameInstance and using non-default port (1527) for the new SQL instance. Some users can connect to the NameInstance without change anything while some need set alias on the client network configuration. Can someone shed some light on this ? Why it worked so differently ? If, we need set alias compamy wide (500+), does anyone know what registry change or file(s) we need to update to reflect this that we can push thru. SMS ?
September 13, 2006 at 11:26 am
What are the client trying to connect to your database for? Is this an app that's on thier desktops, a web application, or are you talking about the db client tools?
Is this an ODBC, OLE or some other sort of connection?
September 13, 2006 at 11:32 am
Application conneceted in various way, APP server, WebSphere, fat client (both ODBC and OLE)
September 13, 2006 at 11:57 am
Is there any pattern to how people connect as to which works and which doesn't. Everyone using the web interface should be fine because you just need to change it once on the web server. The fat client could be a bit more troublesome. Is there a DLL you can edit and redeploy? Most of the apps I work with have a database.dll file that only holds code that sets the db connection and nothing else. Thus when I want to point it at a different db server, dev/qa/prod I just change the dll. That sort of thing would be fairly easy with SMS.
Changing system DSNs on a machine by machine basis would be a bit tougher. I suppose you could use a File DSN and push that out with SMS
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply