On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 05:58:14 -0500, Dragan Krnic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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? >
but it is quicker - easier !! actually it is neither .. and we definately know it isnt more powerful > 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. > I have reservations running production environments in VM sandboxes - have no experience either way - it just sounds bleeding edge....although that recommendation does sound intriquing, it will be a network traffic nightmare for print jobs.... one other key point I forgot to mention is that at the remote sites, there are laptop users..so if they come in a need a file, having it local is key - keeping in mind we are running data over a 1/2 T-1 thanks for all the feedback thus far > 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
