Is there any need for a windows 2000...

[Philippine Mango]

I was wondering if there was any need if accessing a windows 2000 fileserver to have it logged in or not. Do you save ram/resources if you don't have it logged in when doing remote access?

 

[Nothinman]

You might save a little memory since explorer probably won't be loaded if you don't login, but nothing worth worrying about. Where I work all of our NT servers are logged in as admin with the console locked so that other people can't walk up to the box and login.

 

[EULA]

I don't really see a need for it... I keep all my servers logged in, but locked. So long as you don't just leave them "logged in", else you're asking for it...

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango
I was wondering if there was any need if accessing a windows 2000 fileserver to have it logged in or not. Do you save ram/resources if you don't have it logged in when doing remote access?

Definately no need, as others have pointed out my be more convient than logging on/off.

Bill

 

[Woodie]

IMHO, servers should all be logged OFF. At my work, the local\Administrator password is only known to a handful of people, as the sysadmins are Local Admins anyway. This allows us to track *which* admin logged on to the server to do something. These days, 90% of the server console logons are actually TS logons anyway.

Any application that says it requires a logged on account is typically pushed back to the vendor to convert to the Windows Service model.

BTW, you can manually brute-force password guessing against the screen unlock, despite lockout rules. (Yes, the domain account actually does get locked--if it's configured--but the screen will unlock once you guess the correc t password, and the user will have access to local resources.)