Quoting "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > > > >The only additional thing I would add to this if it hasn't been mentioned > >already is that 2000 had/has some major security issues and even though 2003 > is > >more secure out of the box from what I've experienced so far, I would > **never** > >trust a windows box to anything other than my LAN using private IP blocks > and if > >it has inbound access via a public IP then it would more certainly be > behind > >another firewall that is NAT'ing/Port Forwarding its traffic. > > > > > Nobody should ever put a server regardless of OS on a public IP. > It should always be firewalled/Nat/Port Forwarding. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > > > > -- > Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC > Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. > +1-503-667-4564 - jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - http://www.commandprompt.com > PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL > > As with all things technology there is an art too it as well- several ways to do things. I don't, for instance, NAT/Port forward public interfaces for Linux hosts because in my experience they can be hardened without much ambiguity to be placed there. Similarly, I don't feel the same is true with most of the windows variants so for security sake increased an network complexity is justified. My point is that along with the performance issues this thread has point out, data security is another reason to consider a non-windows platform to run your production database. -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
