Jack Corbett (6/11/2008)
Why? You have C2 security enablement that does all the work for you to generate traces of everything. You have :fn_trace_gettable to read the traces so you don't have to leave QA or SMS.
Yours was pointless work.
I think stating that someone's work is pointless is being a little harsh. Especially since C2 auditing is at the server level and audits everything on the server to a pre-determined location. The article outlines how to audit specific events in specific databases to a user-defined location. Why would I want record and then have to sift through every action on the server when all I really need to know about is activity in one database?
If you think C2 auditing is a better solution for this specific purpose outlined in the article then take the time to offer something constructive instead of denigrating the work done by others.
Thanks for the support Jack. I agree with what you said. I initially investigated C2 auditing as a solution, but found the level of auditing it was to perform, and some of the drawbacks associated with it too costly for what i wanted. So, this solution is a leaner version of auditing for specific events. With C2 auditing, when its enabled, if you turn off that trace, the default result is the sql server shuts down. The ability to bring down the prod server by stopping a trace was a high risk, with multiple people able to get in and inadvertantly do this. With the system i described, when its disabled, the prod server continues marching along just fine.
In the end, this is one way of solving a specific problem. There are always multiple ways to do tasks, and i hope that people will see some ideas from this that will help them out in their Auditing and Compliance needs.