Mark Breen
marklbreen at gmail.com
Wed Jun 22 02:58:11 CDT 2011
Hello David and Francisco, About 6 months ago, I was asked to connect to a SQL Server database on a live working box. I was able to detach and attach the db on another server, but I wanted to connect while it was on the existing server. I did not know the password for the SQL instance. At the time, I spent 20 - 30 minutes reading about cracking the password on SQL server and there were a lot of interesting articles on that topic - in fact it was not important to crack the database, but the reason I spent the 20 - 30 mins was because the reading was interesting. It seemed to me that it is easy enough to crack a password in SQL 2005 - but it also seems that MS changed that for SQL 2008. Perhaps this is one reason that the IT audit company raised it. In David's case, there the server is already 2008, and only the single db compatability level is 2005, I would love to hear why the audit company wants it upgraded? I bet they have no idea why, and when they are informed that the server is already at 2008 - and so the enhanced security is already in place - they probably have no real idea why they are hassling you. There must be a special word for this situation - people that portray importantance with no substance, or at least with less substance than they present. What I hate is that they introduce enough FUD to cause us to change our compatabiltiy levels from SQL 90 to SQL 100. Mark On 21 June 2011 22:31, Francisco Tapia <fhtapia at gmail.com> wrote: > yes, just changing the compatibility level will change what is needed for > the database and allows you access to all the newer sql server 2008 > features. the advantage is that you are more compatible with the current > engine. As Microsoft moves forward you will have features supported in > previous version of sql server deprecated or behave oddly, to help avoid > odd > behavior you'd normally update to the current compatibility level. Other > than syntax and the newer sql 2008 features I don't know what else would be > the pressing issue unless the company runs scripts specifically targeted at > a specific database version. > > > -Francisco > http://bit.ly/sqlthis | Tsql and More... > http://db.tt/JeXURAx | Drop Box, Storage in the Cloud (free) > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:33 PM, newsgrps <newsgrps at dalyn.co.nz> wrote: > > > Team, > > > > I have an SQL 2005 database that has been attached to SQL2008. > Everything > > runs fine. > > > > An IT audit company has made the following recommendation: > > > > "A review of the databases has highlighted that the database "StockData4" > > is SQL 90 which is the SQL 2005 compatibility level (SQL 2008 > compatibility > > level should be 100). It is recommended that an upgrade of the database > > StockData4 with the correct compatibility level be undertaken." > > > > From what I have read this just involves changing the databases > > compatibility level setting. Apart from being able to use features > > introduced in SQL2008, is there any other advantage to the change? Are > > there any disadvantages? Is there anything else that might be affected > by > > the change that I should know now and fix? > > > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > > dba-SQLServer mailing list > > dba-SQLServer@**databaseadvisors.com <dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com > > > > http://databaseadvisors.com/**mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver< > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver> > > http://www.databaseadvisors.**com <http://www.databaseadvisors.com> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dba-SQLServer mailing list > dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver > http://www.databaseadvisors.com > >