Hello,
I know to you this seems like a stupid question but I can get some microsoft
article that proves my point I feel our department is going to make a big
mistake.
We have an administrator (help desk supervisor) who wants to put an
application on our SQL server. The application is TRACK-IT, used for
helpdesk support and auditing. I realize this application will probably run
just fine on the Microsoft SQL 2000 server, but I was hoping I could leave it
just for databases. But, the person at the helpdesk who will run the app is
pushing to have installed right on the SQL server instead of our print/file
server. Is there any documentation out there that will support my position
that a SQL Server should be used for Databases only! This is kind of urgent,
I need something fast if I am going to prevent them from doing this
I know this might
Ed Boyer
Reasons not to:
-Could pose a security risk
-Could decrease performance
-Could negatively affect availability
Reasons to:
-None
HTH
Jerry
"EddieB" <EddieB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C4BE62A0-6D9D-461D-96B6-2B163254C4E6@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I know to you this seems like a stupid question but I can get some
> microsoft
> article that proves my point I feel our department is going to make a big
> mistake.
> We have an administrator (help desk supervisor) who wants to put an
> application on our SQL server. The application is TRACK-IT, used for
> helpdesk support and auditing. I realize this application will probably
> run
> just fine on the Microsoft SQL 2000 server, but I was hoping I could leave
> it
> just for databases. But, the person at the helpdesk who will run the app
> is
> pushing to have installed right on the SQL server instead of our
> print/file
> server. Is there any documentation out there that will support my
> position
> that a SQL Server should be used for Databases only! This is kind of
> urgent,
> I need something fast if I am going to prevent them from doing this
> I know this might
> --
> Ed Boyer
|||Is there a microsoft article that I can use to support this. I agree of
course, but apparently my opinion means nothing. She does not want to
listen. Which is too bad
Ed Boyer
"Jerry Spivey" wrote:
> Reasons not to:
> -Could pose a security risk
> -Could decrease performance
> -Could negatively affect availability
> Reasons to:
> -None
> HTH
> Jerry
> "EddieB" <EddieB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C4BE62A0-6D9D-461D-96B6-2B163254C4E6@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Ed,
There are references to this in different white papers dealing with
performance, security and availability. I've read it but off the top of my
head I don't remember what page they were on and in what papers. What I
would do just to cover yourself is to document the reasons with examples of
why this is not your recommendation and email her and cc management and
yourself so if and when things do go sour you'll have some documentation to
fall back on.
HTH
Jerry
"EddieB" <EddieB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BBF845D1-FC64-4DEC-82A5-E45E5AF70927@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Is there a microsoft article that I can use to support this. I agree of
> course, but apparently my opinion means nothing. She does not want to
> listen. Which is too bad
> --
> Ed Boyer
>
> "Jerry Spivey" wrote:
|||Does this application use SQL for backend, or has its own, if its own is it
proprietary or another 3rd party db solution.
Will it install "middleware" or some sore of service to respond to clients
Does the SLA for this application allow for it to be down for SQL
maintenence
Does the SLA for you sql server allow it to go down due to this other
application
How does this other app access your system i.e is it a service running
under local SYSTEM account
How secure is this new app
on...and...on...and...on......
#4 @.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...sqlserver.mspx
Secure Operation:Surface and feature reduction @.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../sp3sec04.mspx
"EddieB" <EddieB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C4BE62A0-6D9D-461D-96B6-2B163254C4E6@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I know to you this seems like a stupid question but I can get some
> microsoft
> article that proves my point I feel our department is going to make a big
> mistake.
> We have an administrator (help desk supervisor) who wants to put an
> application on our SQL server. The application is TRACK-IT, used for
> helpdesk support and auditing. I realize this application will probably
> run
> just fine on the Microsoft SQL 2000 server, but I was hoping I could leave
> it
> just for databases. But, the person at the helpdesk who will run the app
> is
> pushing to have installed right on the SQL server instead of our
> print/file
> server. Is there any documentation out there that will support my
> position
> that a SQL Server should be used for Databases only! This is kind of
> urgent,
> I need something fast if I am going to prevent them from doing this
> I know this might
> --
> Ed Boyer
|||If the said database is an SQL Server database, it must be attached to an
SQL Server. If the said SQL Server is the onlly SQL Server in your office,
you have no choice if you wna to use that app, which requires the said
database.
An SQL Server can serve mone that one database. If the SQL Server computer
has enough power to server that extra database, technically, there is
nothing wrong. As for other possible/potecial problem, such as added
security concern due extra SQL Server login required by that app..., it is
totally up to your analysis on your situation.
If you really do not want to mix the said app's database with your very
mission critical SQL Server, then you need another SQL Server to server that
database, or if the said database has very low work load, you may consider
use MSDE (free version of SQL Server) to server the database.
"EddieB" <EddieB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C4BE62A0-6D9D-461D-96B6-2B163254C4E6@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I know to you this seems like a stupid question but I can get some
> microsoft
> article that proves my point I feel our department is going to make a big
> mistake.
> We have an administrator (help desk supervisor) who wants to put an
> application on our SQL server. The application is TRACK-IT, used for
> helpdesk support and auditing. I realize this application will probably
> run
> just fine on the Microsoft SQL 2000 server, but I was hoping I could leave
> it
> just for databases. But, the person at the helpdesk who will run the app
> is
> pushing to have installed right on the SQL server instead of our
> print/file
> server. Is there any documentation out there that will support my
> position
> that a SQL Server should be used for Databases only! This is kind of
> urgent,
> I need something fast if I am going to prevent them from doing this
> I know this might
> --
> Ed Boyer
|||By the looks of the fine print
http://itsolutions.intuit.com/pdf/73...sLtr_05_is.pdf
This app installs MSDE, maybe it can use SQL As a back end in which case,
you may just need to house another db....
but middleware....dunno
"Norman Yuan" <NotReal@.NotReal.not> wrote in message
news:%23b6rty6vFHA.1996@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> If the said database is an SQL Server database, it must be attached to an
> SQL Server. If the said SQL Server is the onlly SQL Server in your office,
> you have no choice if you wna to use that app, which requires the said
> database.
> An SQL Server can serve mone that one database. If the SQL Server computer
> has enough power to server that extra database, technically, there is
> nothing wrong. As for other possible/potecial problem, such as added
> security concern due extra SQL Server login required by that app..., it is
> totally up to your analysis on your situation.
> If you really do not want to mix the said app's database with your very
> mission critical SQL Server, then you need another SQL Server to server
> that database, or if the said database has very low work load, you may
> consider use MSDE (free version of SQL Server) to server the database.
> "EddieB" <EddieB@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C4BE62A0-6D9D-461D-96B6-2B163254C4E6@.microsoft.com...
>
