Do they have NTFS permissions on those things, yet? That's probably a major feature to be looking for...
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM, John Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > Be mindful of the fact that while some claim AD support they don’t > necessarily execute it well. Buffalo Terrastations come to mind….. YMMV > > > > *John W. Cook* > > *Network Operations Manager* > > *Partnership For Strong Families* > > *5950 NW 1st Place* > > *Gainesville, Fl 32607* > > *Office (352) 244-1610* > > *Cell (352) 215-6944* > > *MCSE, MCP+I, MCTS, CompTIA A+, N+, VSP**4, VTSP4* > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Kennedy, Jim > *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:57 AM > > *To:* '[email protected]' > *Subject:* RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server > > > > And that it supports AD for permissions. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *J- P > *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:56 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server > > > > So it seems like more folks ar3 leaning to the NAS, any particular > features I should be looking for? > > Aside from ensuring supports X number of connections? > ------------------------------ > > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server > Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 07:49:06 -0400 > > print yes, file is the other question, if I go to NAS do I "need" windows > file server? wouldn't the NAS take care of that? > > The NAS box should take care of shares, etc. internally. But make sure it > has the capacity to support the number of planned connections. > > > > John M. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *J- P > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:19 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server > > > > print yes, file is the other question, if I go to NAS do I "need" windows > file server? wouldn't the NAS take care of that? > > The Exchange is a guest on the 2012 hyper-v host, and there is nothing > else on it, but in my research i see both negative and positive feedback > regarding loading another guest- > > In theory being that 2012 allows/gives 2 guest 2012's with a single > license, I could easily spin up another guest and make it a DC , DHCP, DNS > , etc... server. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jean-Paul Natola > > ------------------------------ > > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server > Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:07:56 -0400 > > Are you migrating the file/print to another machine? I am hoping you > don't have anything on the Exchange server but Exchange. > > Jon > > ------------------------------ > > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server > Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:02:47 -0400 > > Already planned, VM 2003dc will become 2012 DC > and current "all in one" 2003 dc will become 2012 DC (already have the > Cals) > > that will give me 2 dedicated 2012 DC's > > Looking to stay under 5k, and I have no problems with Dell outlet r510 or > r710 - > > just trying to decide NAS or Server, and of course I dont need to populate > all the drive bays right away, heck there used to a > 7200k sata1 mirror- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jean-Paul Natola > > ------------------------------ > > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server > Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:51:19 -0400 > > I really hate to do this but you will first want to start with a budget > and then try to fit what fits into that budget. As an aside you might want > to look at upgrading to at least 2008 R2 or better 2012, have at least 2 > DC's, and get all the file/print off the DC when you go this route. > > Jon > > ------------------------------ > > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server > Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:43:30 -0400 > > Company background, > > 30 yrs old, started with 2 guys, went to to computers in the late 90's had > about 20 users, 1 W2k server and a 120 gb SNAP- > > Fast forward , 2008, 30 users, sql 2005 DB (consultant at the time ) > installs a new 1U 2003 80gb raid server for sql DB , and another 1U server > with a mirrored 750gb drive , serving as DC/File/Print/DNS Server. > > Fast Forward 2013 - single site , single domain > > 1. ESXi hosting a VM 2008 Citrix TS, and a VM 2003 DC (no storage really > available) > 1. Windows 2012 Hyper-V host, SAS mirror for host OS, raid 10 2TB for > guest OS', currently one guest, 2012 with Exchange 2013. > > Now there are 60 users, (still using original 2003 for File Print and DNS) > and storage demands, as we all know are increasing exponentially, so I get > the "we need more storage " so this begs the question, new server 2u (R710 > maybe) , or a NAS 8 or 12 bays maybe- > > As an aside, majority of the users use basic office files, but there are > about a dozen that deal with CAD Audio and Video > I want this solution to be good for 3-5 years > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jean-Paul Natola > > > ------------------------------ > > CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or > attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity > to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information > (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, > dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this > information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient > without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This > information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and > Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. > Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result > in civil and/or criminal penalties. > Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really > need to. >
