can i still use the linked server if the sql server security was set up
as 'windows only'? if so, how? (i've been using mixed mode (sql and
windows) in the past and was able to establish linked server from
another server by mapping an host account to sa account on the target
server. but that didn't seem working under the 'windows only' mode.
also, does that mean 'sa' account is useless under the 'windows only'
mode?
pls advise. thank you!> also, does that mean 'sa' account is useless under the 'windows only'
> mode?
yes
> can i still use the linked server if the sql server security was set up
> as 'windows only'? if so, how? (i've been using mixed mode (sql and
> windows) in the past and was able to establish linked server from
> another server by mapping an host account to sa account on the target
> server. but that didn't seem working under the 'windows only' mode.
Implementing Delegation.
Troubleshooting Kerberos Delegation
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...rbdel.mspx#EHAA
AMB
"=== Steve L ===" wrote:
> background sql2k on win2k3 server
> can i still use the linked server if the sql server security was set up
> as 'windows only'? if so, how? (i've been using mixed mode (sql and
> windows) in the past and was able to establish linked server from
> another server by mapping an host account to sa account on the target
> server. but that didn't seem working under the 'windows only' mode.
> also, does that mean 'sa' account is useless under the 'windows only'
> mode?
> pls advise. thank you!
>|||thank you. that (delegation) sounds complicated.
my company purchased a vendor application and the vendor consultant
instructed us to install sql backend (mostly default settings), but
with 'windows only' security mode. he saide that's the only way the
application will work. I'm not convinced why it has to be that way for
an application to work or that's the best practice. would anyone share
their views on this? thank you.
w/o the mix mode, obviosuly it's more difficult to implement the linked
server. also i'm wondering what would happen when a master database is
corrupted? i thought it requires sa account and password to restore a
master database. but if 'sa' account becomes useless, how would one
restore a master database if needed? thank you.|||> thank you. that (delegation) sounds complicated.
> my company purchased a vendor application and the vendor consultant
> instructed us to install sql backend (mostly default settings), but
> with 'windows only' security mode. he saide that's the only way the
> application will work. I'm not convinced why it has to be that way for
> an application to work or that's the best practice. would anyone share
> their views on this? thank you.
Because of the integration with windows security, which provides more
features.
See "Authentication Modes" in BOL, for more info.
> w/o the mix mode, obviosuly it's more difficult to implement the linked
> server. also i'm wondering what would happen when a master database is
> corrupted? i thought it requires sa account and password to restore a
> master database. but if 'sa' account becomes useless, how would one
> restore a master database if needed? thank you.
Any login that belong to the fixed server role "sy
min" can do it.AMB
"=== Steve L ===" wrote:
> thank you. that (delegation) sounds complicated.
> my company purchased a vendor application and the vendor consultant
> instructed us to install sql backend (mostly default settings), but
> with 'windows only' security mode. he saide that's the only way the
> application will work. I'm not convinced why it has to be that way for
> an application to work or that's the best practice. would anyone share
> their views on this? thank you.
> w/o the mix mode, obviosuly it's more difficult to implement the linked
> server. also i'm wondering what would happen when a master database is
> corrupted? i thought it requires sa account and password to restore a
> master database. but if 'sa' account becomes useless, how would one
> restore a master database if needed? thank you.
>
No comments:
Post a Comment