Can I impersonate a userid in sql server odbc connection to Sql Server 2000?

My client gave me a domain/userid which I use with terminal server and mapped network drives to do work for them. However, I'd like to set up odbc access from my client pc (which is not on their domain) to their database for testing. It seems like you only have 2 choices - trusted authentication or sql authentication. Is there any way to use trusted authentication but change the userid? This would be similar to the map network drive "connect using a different user id" function.

I'm connecting to a Win2003 server running SQL Server 2000 from a WinXP PC.

Not realy, if you are using trusted connections you need to have a valid username and password that is allowed on the sql server. Is there a way that you could get the DBA to add your workstation\username to the database, then you should be able to pass your details... The other option would be to get another user set up that you could terminal serve in with and test with that.

|||Thanks for the answer. I do use terminal server but I have a problem in that once i minimize the screen or close it and come back in, my access database that is running minimizes and won't come back. So I thought I'd use odbc from my workstation to check on the status of the programs. I'll pursue having them add my workstation and userid as a trusted userid on that server.

Can 98SE read files from NTFS Drives?

I have been told by a local PC club technician that 98SE cannot read NTFS
drives in a network. Is this true? TIA, Jim.http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?h...news.dfncis.de

Simon|||"Jim Richards" wrote:

> I have been told by a local PC club technician that 98SE cannot read
> NTFS drives in a network. Is this true? TIA, Jim.

In addition to the excellent thread linked to in another message, please
allow me to clarify the situation.

Forgive me if you know all this, but perhaps someone else reading this
thread in the future won't. Also, lest this be seen as OT, I think there
are plenty of people that end up in situations managing SQL Server even
though they've never been trained on things like hardware and OS
operations... So, to make a long story, er, less long:

All (modern) OS's use layers of abstraction. A Windows computer has a
driver to talk to the physical disk drive via the bus it's connected to
(SCSI, ATA/IDE, SATA, etc). A file system driver sits "on top" of that to
organize the disk into a logical view. Without the file system driver, you
have to access the disk by "block": I've seen mainframe programs based
around this and *trust* me, it's ugly :) FAT32, NTFS, ext3, ReiserFS, et al
are file systems that allow you to view a physical disk as directories and
files. Without them, you couldn't load the system library
c:\windows\system32\user32.dll... You'd need to know to read blocks 345-392
to get that DLL (and that's vastly oversimplified).

This often confuses people because Windows allows you to map a drive to a
network share. However, that mapped drive is *not* sending commands
directly to the disk device on the server. The mapped drive is presented by
a driver that talks to the server over a network instead of directly to a
physical drive. Not only is this far better, but it's really the only
option... Can you imagine 100 client computers all trying to physically move
the drive heads around on your server?

Another way to think of it is that network file servers work like SQL
Server: you send a request and you get a response. You don't really care if
the server read your file from a single IDE drive formatted with FAT32, a
7TB RAID 1+0 disk array formatted with NTFS 5, or from a special interface
to thousands of trained orangutans with legal pads (which is how we run our
servers at my company ;).

The problem with Win9x is that there's no NTFS file system driver available
from Microsoft (although it wouldn't surprise me if someone on the Internet
had hacked one together). So Win9x can't talk to a physical drive formatted
with NTFS. But this doesn't matter on the network because the server is in
charge of the NTFS drive.

So, the PC tech is completely wrong. But...

There's a protocol known as iSCSI that allows you send SCSI bus commands
over TCP/IP. It allows you to use a network as the bus to a drive array.
If for some bizarre reason you managed to get a hold of an iSCSI driver for
a Windows 98 computer so that you could access a networked drive array,
you'd need a FAT16 or FAT32 partition on the array since the Win98 computer
would be sending physical commands to the array. But... that's mostly
theoretical: I can't imagine that happening unless your were a masochist,
had tons of cash, and then got drunk and decided to hire some systems
programmers to put together incredibly bizarre systems :)

Craig

Can 2005 and 2000 have use same shared network drive as resource

Can 2005 and 2000 have use same shared network drive as resource?
Example: If 2000 uses I,J,K Network drives can 2005 use I:\2005,j:\2005 and
k:\2005 .
We have A/A cluster, Can i upgrade one instance to 2005 and keep another as
2000 for some time.
Thanks
IT
"IT" <IT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2B430FAC-5A0E-4F65-B28F-6C51D1AD31EA@.microsoft.com...
> Can 2005 and 2000 have use same shared network drive as resource?
Not if they are configured correctly. Since each instance will have its own
cluster group and thus its own virtual server, then the resources from one
cluster group can not be used by another cluster group at the same time.
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
The next ClusterHelp classes are:
Denver starting Feb 12th
NYC starting Feb 19th

> Example: If 2000 uses I,J,K Network drives can 2005 use I:\2005,j:\2005
> and
> k:\2005 .
> We have A/A cluster, Can i upgrade one instance to 2005 and keep another
> as
> 2000 for some time.
> Thanks
> IT
>
|||Thank you for the reply. I have one more question on A/A cluster(right now
its sql 2000 A/A cluster), Can i upgrade one instance to 2005 and keep
another as 2000 for some time.
Thanks in advance.
"Russ Kaufmann" wrote:

> "IT" <IT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2B430FAC-5A0E-4F65-B28F-6C51D1AD31EA@.microsoft.com...
> Not if they are configured correctly. Since each instance will have its own
> cluster group and thus its own virtual server, then the resources from one
> cluster group can not be used by another cluster group at the same time.
>
> --
> Russ Kaufmann
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
> Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
> Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
> The next ClusterHelp classes are:
> Denver starting Feb 12th
> NYC starting Feb 19th
>
>
|||"IT" <IT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:60AC40F5-FB03-4265-9BDF-2174C196DF81@.microsoft.com...
> Thank you for the reply. I have one more question on A/A cluster(right now
> its sql 2000 A/A cluster), Can i upgrade one instance to 2005 and keep
> another as 2000 for some time.
Sure. You can have different versions of SQL running in different instances.
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
The next ClusterHelp classes are:
Denver starting Feb 12th
NYC starting Feb 19th