If you can't be more specific than "Combine whatever is fitting best to your need and the users needs",
I don't see what your point is. > i see no problem to have > different kinds of servers in one Network, if it makes sense > from the desired needs, > i have serveral Terminal servers and a samba pdc, > in different offices and locations. > I would warn to make a pseudo religios > discussion out of that. > Combine whatever is fitting best to your and the users needs. > for file services i would preffer samba ever. > >> I think I'm clear about what this young Jedi knight >> is asking. His conundrum is that he'll end up with >> way too many servers if he implements both a Windows >> Terminal Server and a Samba file and printer server >> on separate machines. Centralizing the Terminal Server >> on a big machine would entail dramatic traffic load on >> his thin 1/2 T-1 wire, even if he leaves one Samba >> server on each site for files and printing. So basically >> he asks: Does it not make more sense to just add file >> and print services to the MS Windows Terminal Servers ? >> >> And the answer is: Of course, it doesnt! >> You don't wanna be on the wrong side of the Force, >> do you, Chris? >> >> The way I see it, Chris should put his w2k3 in a >> vmware sandbox on his quad opteron samba server, >> ideally. Then install some NX magic and live >> happily ever after, with one central Samba server, >> (+ stand-by) subleting a couple of w2k3 avatars >> under vmware. Or vice versa. >> >> Let the Force be with you, >> Yoda >> >> >>>sorry but i am not clear what is your Question? >>> >>> >>>>Not thinking about migrating back due to issues, >>>>it is more due to implementation needs and a little >>>>situation I have been wrestling with for a bit now, >>>>and would love some feedback >>>> >>>>First a little history: >>>> >>>>We currently have 10 locations connected via a >>>>dedicated 1/2 T-1. Last year I migrated from a >>>>WINNT domain to a Samba/LDAP domain. It has been >>>>running great. Basically did this for license >>>>reasons as well as reduced administrative horror. >>>> >>>>NOW: >>>> >>>>We have just started to roll out Thinstation >>>>thin-clients that are connecting to Win TSRV servers. >>>>What is being planned is 1 Terminal Server per location. >>>>This will significantly reduce the adminstrative >>>>nightmare on multiple Windows boxes and centralize it. >>>>However, this is where I start to feel that I am having >>>>too many servers per location, seeing that the windows >>>>server could do what the Samba server is doing, >>>>I am in debate about moving back to windows >>>>(I have will need to licenses and boxes there anyhows) >>>> >>>>One other option is just ot house a ginormous WIN-TSRV >>>>at the central location. However, I am afraid of issues >>>>with printing back to the remote locations >>>>(pushing large files through the 1/2 T-1 to print). >>>> >>>>A Another option is to remove the samba servers from the >>>>remote location, and just have a samba PDC with >>>>authenticating windows tsrv machines. - I dont like this >>>>option for some reason >>>> >>>>I really dont want to move away from the SAMBA backend, >>>>but at the same time dont want to stay with it just because >>>>I 'like it' and I 'want to'. So I am looking for >>>>discussion/arguements as to why I should stay with the >>>>Samba server and a win-tsrv server, as opposed to >>>>just moving to a MS backend. >>>> >>>>Please Obi-won Kenobi, you are our only help! thanks -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
