I did some tests playing with a centralized termserv and pulling large documents to it, and printing large documents across the WAN ... well, in general if I pulled a 100MB TIF it took about 20 minutes, it then took about 3 minutes to print and spoll (all going back and forth over a congested 1/2 T-1)
So - what I think I am going to attempt is to completely revamp my network from the core up -- right now we are running full t-1's point to point (hub and spoke) 1/2 data 1/2 digital voice .. for the time being, I am going to roll some generic W2K servers to a coulpe branches to see if the thin client concept will work... If that pans out (which means ultimately I will reduce workstation maintenance by 10 fold) I will begin to switch each location to a VOIP solution, change to a 3Mbit DSL and VPN everything to the central location - and cut the p2p T1. At the central location I will roll out a huge central file server as well as a central W2K3 termserv This would reduce network administration drastically. The one catch I forsee is that some laptop users will want access to their files - I am going to think that the 3Mbit will handle most traffic relatively well Outside of almost every computer relying on the central TERMSERV - I think it is a pretty good solution .. I would most likely keep a single XP workstation at each location to handle scanning and some other small little items Anyone see any major snafu's with this - outside of the large project .. I dont have to roll out TERMSERVs to every location and I get to maintain the samba backend (unfortunately its roll dimishes to print servers) On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:34:53 +1000, Chris Tepaske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So what are you thinking? reinstall your remote servers with MS Terminal > servers instead of Samba I'm assuming that each Samba server is DC and > authenticated users. If this assumption is correct then you would want the > terminal server installed as a DC? right. Well this sort of config is > possible but it is certainly not recommended. You could possible exposing > the SAM or the AD to the use base a major security hole, and depending on > how may users you are authenticating you could be putting major strain on > the server and impacting on performance. In fact you will need to make > policy changes on your terminal servers to allow users to logon look at the > following MS article > (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;247989) basically > depending on user base at remote sites you would more than likely always > have some sort of DC; Samba or Microsoft plus any application server > required i.e. a terminal server. Basic network design always says limit > network/authentication traffic over WAN links if you want happy users. > > Cheers > > Chris Tepaske > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dragan Krnic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 11:03 PM > To: rruegner > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Samba] Re: Migrate BACK to WINDOWS -> Talk me out of it QUICK > > 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 > -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
