"Joseph S. Gardner" wrote:
>
> Evening All,
>
> I have a small home office with 5 PC's and several users (read kids
> here). At present one is Linux-Mandrake 6.1 and the others are Win NT
> 4.0 and Win95. It is my intention to convert all but 1 into Linux
> boxes. I also intend to allow any user to sit down at any PC and login.
>
> My question are
>
> 1. Is there a method to centralize my user administration or
> am I doomed to have to add each potential user to each
> machine? This leads to question #2 where / how to mount
> /user/home
> 2. I would like to keep all /user/home directories on one
> machine. Is it possible to setup the login procedure to
> "mount" /user/home across the network or do I need to teach
> every one (including myself) how to use telnet or what?
YOu have several options, and you decide which is best for you.
Using NFS, you can mount any portion of any drive into any other
computer. For instance, in your "server" computer, you could
designate a partition, directory or even an entire drive to be the
"/user/home" for any or all the other computers. I would rather
recommend you use "/home" or "/home/particularuser" as the NFS
mounted partitions.
The above solution would be transparent to the user, provided
the server machine is on the air when the user computer comes on
line.
The server computer can be any of your designated computers, or
better yet, it could be a stand alone, dedicated computer. There
is a computer known as a Quantum Snap that has a 23gb drive, web
based administration, and does all the above out of the box
including
Samba shares for your remaining Win95 box. The Snap runs Linux
(but
not so the user would notice) and costs about $900. Of course,
you can build your own box.
This server computer, like a Snap, does not need a keyboard, mouse
or monitor. In fact, it does not need to run X windows. It would
be
a simple thing. The advantage of a server computer vs having the
same function on one of the desktops is that it is much more
resistant
to problems. It just mounts the files on the network. If you use
a desktop computer, and whoever sits at it monkeys with it, it
could
break it. This does not have to be a prolonged break, but it
would
affect the whole office. Lets say the computer sits on YOUR desk,
and
you install a game, or an office suite, and something goes wrong
and
your computer goes down for 2 to 4 hours. For those two to four
hours
no work gets done in the office and all there are staring at
Joe Gardner feverishly work on his computer. With smirks on their
faces. You can't have that. At least, if the CENTRAL server
breaks,
then you are an IT professional fixing it. But if it is in your
desktop...well, the attitude will be (and rightfully so) that you
monkeyed with it, now you gotta fix it.
Another solution is for the remote computers to run as X servers
and the central server runs the X client. Lets get the names here
straight. The names are backwards from most people perception of
server/client. In X windows, the computer having the Video
Monitor
you look at is the X-server.
At any rate, what I mean is to have your 5 office computers
display
stuff that is running on the central server computer (X client).
There are some advantages here. The desktop machines running X
can
run a very simplified Linux system. In fact, they do not even
need
to have hard drives but can load the X server software, Linux
kernel
etc. right over the network at boot time. How much is loaded over
the network is something you need to decide.
There are some out of the box software packages for this, but any
Linux machine can display a program running on another one right
out
of the box.
On a 10Mb ethernet, you will not be too satisfied running X
programs.
The performance is definetely sluggish. I have had "acceptable"
results running Netscape that way. However, on a 100Mb ethernet
it is as if the program was running on the displaying computer.
Much
recommended.
With diskless computers as display stations, you centralize all of
the
server (and X client) functions into one computer that can be
simply
administered. There is no possibility of your office staff
playing
PacMan or Mahjongg unless you have those programs in your central
machine. All backups, etc. can be done from the one drive.
There is an X server available for the Win95/98 o/s so you can
still
use that machine to view the program running on the central Linux
box.
At an office staff level of 4 or 5 something like this begins to
make
a lot of sense. For one thing, the central computer can be the
700mHz
whiz-bang box with all the goodies on it, while the X display
terminals
can be driveless boxes. This makes the display stations very
cheap.
Not counting the monitor, probably about $250 per seat does it.
The
cost of administering a bunch of computers in the office vs
administering
a single central one starts making tremendous inroads into the
cost of
running an office.
You can start working on something like this fairly easily.
Displaying
programs on each other computer is something for you to experiment
with,
as is 100MB ethernet or even Fiber Connected Network.
Each user would have his own direcotry area on the central
computer,
and you know how that works. For instance, running Netscape, each
user has his own preferences, files, colors, bookmarks,
attributes, etc.
The same applies to virtually any other program such as Star
Office
or Applix. The Central computer, incredibly, does not have to
run
X windows or even have X installed. Because of this, you do not
generally need it to the aforementioned 700 mHz whiz box mentioned
above....
Once you have figured out how to display stuff in other computers,
get the network working properly, you can then figure out how to
make
the desktops into diskless work stations. While getting all this
figured out puts you into a learning curve, it has the advantage
that
your USERS really need learn nothing. They turn the computer on
and in a minute or two they are working at their station just as
if
they were sitting at a monitor and keyboard on the central
computer.
For the administrator of the central computer, his tasks are much
easier. If he has to upgrade, say, Netscape. He does this ONCE
in the central computer. There are really no issues concerning
users; it adds at most just a little overhead to his chores. On
the
other hand, a network of stand alone computers, with drive and
each
with ever-diverging Linux (or Windows95) installs becomes a real
headache in short order. The central disk drive idea fits about
halfway in between the two, but is still much more labor intensive
than the central computer and satellite X display stations.
--
Ramon Gandia ============= Sysadmin ============== Nook Net
http://www.nook.net [EMAIL PROTECTED]
285 West First Avenue tel. 907-443-7575
P.O. Box 970 fax. 907-443-2487
Nome, Alaska 99762-0970 ==== Alaska Toll Free. 888-443-7525
