May 24, 2004 at 7:38 pm
I have a question I hope someone maybe able to point me in the right direction. We just recently setup a new SQL server 2000 cluster. This cluster is on a private LAN 169.x.x.x The only machines allowed to access the SQL server directly are machines (App Servers) that are
plugged into the same switch that it is. The app servers have 2 nics for 2 networks, the 169.x.x.x and a 10.x.x.x All of our applications are ok with this except one. One application has client software that accesses the SQL database directly. This software is not from in the office so we are unable to change the software itself. The way it is setup now, they can not because they are all on the 10.x.x.x network that can not get thru the switch. We set this up this way for security. This is a school and we have other databases with info on it that we didn't want students to be able to get at at all. My question is this, is there a way to setup a server machine that would have the 2 nics in it, have the clients target that server and have that server pass the data to the SQL database and then relay the info back to the clients? Someone told me to just load the client tools on the server that is in between the clients and the SQL. So I did, but all I seem to read about is Remote Server or Linked Server, which in my understanding,
I need a database on the inbetween server. Is this correct? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
May 25, 2004 at 4:33 am
FOr your situation unless you build a middle ware app that can access at the switch and feed the info back then you setup a SQL instance for them on a point of the switch they can reach and that can see the other SQL server then create a linked server using a security context that will only access the database they need. Create that same database on the server they can reach and create views and SPs that reference the remote data using the 4 part name.
May 25, 2004 at 6:22 am
I agree with Antares. You don't want another Windows machine to be a router since that would be asecurity risk. Another SQL Server that could see both, while inefficient, would work. Or you might be able to setup a router that could do it as well and bridge the two networks for a specific set of machines.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
May 26, 2004 at 12:29 am
Hi Steve,
I would look at the impotance of the software (cost, maintenance etc) and then compare the cost and effort of installing sql server as linked server VS a router to do this. ie :
software VS SQL Linked Server(maintenance license etc) VS router
My feeling would be to go with the router as it will give a better level of stability over a windows machine acting as a passthrough (linked) server.(don't foget return of investment over a year).
Regards CJ
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply