Network

[bfdexp]

Recommend?

Does anyone recommend buying a server w/ MS Server 2003 and running client PCs with XP SP2 with the server managing the network when cost is a factor?

I know a server alone is between $2,500-$3,000, so what do you think for setting up a network that requires users to able to log in to various computers throughout the building, roaming profiles?

[YeOldeStonecat]

What's your needs? What's this for? Home? Business? To host what?

[ErikD]

It all depends on what you need. Is it worth the cost of doing for one user in a small office? Maybe yes, maybe no, it all depends. Sometimes the law dictates what you need in terms of records retention and such.

If it is for home then it is overkill but nice to have (that is how I have my home network setup). Depending on the need the physical server (hardware wise) can be hyad pretty cheap, it is the Windows Server and licenses that can be a killer as price goes.

Another option that is viable if money is a concern is a Linux based server. It isn't suitable for all needs, but can save a lot of money if you have fairly simple needs and are willing to learn Linux (and actually can be pretty powerful if you really know what you are doing).

[bfdexp]

We are talking about 5 computers with 15 users. Each user should be able to log-in at each of the 5 computers and have the same files and desktop, roaming profile. This can only be accomplished with Windows Server 2003, correct? I would like to keep the server a MS because I have worked with MS server before and found it fairly easy.

Thats why I was looking at doing a sever w/ MS Server 03 and the other 5 computers with XP SP2. Would be nice to run the server with XP SP2, but would not be able to keep a floating desktop and files, correct?

[YeOldeStonecat]

This can only be accomplished with Windows Server 2003, correct? I would like to keep the server a MS because I have worked with MS server before and found it fairly easy.

Thats why I was looking at doing a sever w/ MS Server 03 and the other 5 computers with XP SP2.

It can be done with prior versions...not "only" 2003. However..if purchasing now...what's in the channels is 2003 R2.

IMO your budget is a bit on the light side...15 users, you'll want to account for licensing, disk space, and importantly..backup of that disk space. The backup solution itself can eat up over 1/2 your above projected server cost.

I'm not a fan of roaming profiles....tend to prefer folder redirection of My Documents..and that's about it.

[bfdexp]

Not too familiar with folder redirection, can you link me to a good site on that method. Do you need MS Server to manage that method or can the server and clients all run XP SP2?

[YeOldeStonecat]

Folder Redirection can be done manually. It's really just mapping a folder..to another location across the network. For example, with My Documents. Map a network drive, say it's the "H" drive, to some location on the "server". Now..right click the "My Documents" folder..select "move"..and move it to that mapped drive.

Can also be done using group policy on a server.

Technically you can manually do this if you're using an XP box for a "server"..but I do encourage you to get rid of the idea of using a desktop OS as a "server". Works fine for home..but in a business network with this many users..it's time to outgrow a home network setup.

Have you looked at Microsoft Small Business Server? Great bang for the buck, a lot of value, very cost effective for a small business. Gives you incredible flexibility for e-mail also.

What are your specific needs for "roaming profiles"? Is it just to keep My Docs? What is the day to day operation of this network?

[ErikD]

I agree, SBS would be a good package for you. You get a solution specifically designed for a small business and to all run on a single server.

As for roaming profiles, well IMHO it really depends on what you do and how your network is setup. As long as you manage profile size strictly I think it can be great. It means you can logon to any PC in the network and have an identical desktop look and feel. Makes work easier for some people. The downside is that the entire profile must be sent across the network everytime a user logs on or off. I use roaming profiles a home, and keep my profiles really small. This is mainly just so my desktop and laptop are always in sync.

How will the 15 users share the 5 PCs? Will there be a generic login that they all share and use as needed? Will it be individual profiles for each user to be used at set times? I think that as YOSC mentioned licensing is a big deal, and you want to do it right. I would say if at all posible buy enough licenses for 20 users to deal with growth.

[bfdexp]

1. As for using an XP box for the server and manually mapping, I think there are some issues. I would have to set up the same 15 log-ins at each computer and then manually map a drive from each log-in to their personal folder on the server, from each computer. So would allow each user to connect to his own folder on the server from each computer. This seems pretty buggy and time consuming. Do I have this correct?

2. I am looking at MS SBS Standard. It is the cheapest, but will it have enough for my needs? I am looking at each user to have their same desktop set-up no matter what computer they log in on and to have all of their documents also. Their documents can not be viewed by other co-workers, only one folder is to be shared among the co-workers. Beyond that they will be using MS Office, the internet, and a company management software package.

3. There will not be a generic log-in. Each user will have their own log-in and is the reason why I am looking at SBS so I can accomplish that, while allowing each user to have the defined standards in 2.

4. CALs are a huge DEAL, LOL!!! It seams a bulk of the cost will be with that. SBS CALs are twice that of Server 03. Now I am a little confused with the CAL concept. I was told by purchasing a server w/ either OS, they come with 5 CALs. Now does CALs apply to each PC connecting to the server or for each user log-in connecting to the server? I am looking at connecting 5 XP SP2 PCs to the server with 15 users on the network. So do I have to purchase 5 CALs for the connecting XP boxes or do I have to purchase 15 CALs for the users on the system?

[koldchillah]

1. yeah, forget that idea.. SBS 2003 is the much better solution.

2. Good call. You can use folder redirection to make sure that the desktop & my documents folder follows the user from PC to PC. If you setup the SBS Exchange for mail, you will want to show the users or walk them through setting up Outlook to work with Exchange since it will have to be setup under each PC the user logs into. I typically do a little writeup and stick it on the file server so that office staff can refer to it when needed. I then communicate with the staff as to where to find my walkthroughs on the fileserver so they don't have to call me every time they need to setup Outlook from a different PC. They can also use OWA from any PC on the network if they are not logged into their typical PC, another thing I train them on. Educating & training the office staff is among top priorities wherever & whenver my services are provided.

4. CALs can be counted per user or per device. In other words whichever you have fewer of, that is what you want to base it on. Since most of my clients have more users than workstations, typically I set them up to use CAL's per device, meaning each workstation.

For your situation, as long as you don't have remote domain users you should be fine with the default 5 CAL's but it would be wise to pickup an extra 5 CAL's just to be prepared for growth and/or if you decide you need to have some users work remotely from various PC's which will each require a CAL to connect and use the server's resources.

Some info about SBS 2003 CAL's:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/howtobuy/licensing.mspx

[bfdexp]

Thanks for the help:

What we decided is the following, let me know if you have any opinions...

Dell Poweredge 1900 Server w/ MS Server 2003 running a quad-core processor, 2GB RAM, and (2) 160GB HD in a Raid 1 config (mirroring).

connected to a

Dell PowerConnect 2324 unmanaged switch w/ 24 ports, 2 @ 1000BaseT and the rest at 10/100

connected to a

SonicWall Tz170w router/firewall that will serve as the firewall and wireless router. DSL connected to the SonicWall for Internet.

one XP box and one Vista box connected to the switch and the other three boxes are at two other remote locations and are XP boxes. Will connect to these via a VPN through the SonicWall and Server.

Will the three remote boxes connect ok via a VPN? I want them to also act as the two local boxes by having individual log-ins and desktop environments managed by server.

[ErikD]

First off Server 2003 and SBS 2003 are very different things. As has already been discussed SBS would be a great package for our needs, so make sure you know the differences and get what you want/need.

160GB of HD space is a difficult call to make. I don't know what your needs are, but it is either plenty or not enough. Only you can make that call by looking at what you will be storing on the server and what kind of space is needed for it. I like to do a 30GB or so partition for Windows and leave the rest for data. This setup also allows for adding things like Remote Installation Services (RIS) and Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) in the future easily.

Connecting by VPN depends on what you plan on doing. VPN will choke down the bandwidth of any link as it adds lots of overhead, and extra work to encrypt/decrypt the traffic. I use it all the time for remote support of sites and to do some work after hours without having to travel. It works great, but you need to work within limitations. Most of what I do is CLI stuff, or connecting with Remote Desktop and for these I don't really notice the slower speeds. Now for file transfers, you start to get into trouble. Same goes for running any applications at the remote end off of the server. Good news is that you can almost always come up with a good solution that allows you to have remote access and still work reasonably.

What do you mean by local boxes managed by the server? You really can't do this, you are either connected in the domain and managed, or not. You can (and by default will) have a cached login. This means if you are at a remote site and the network goes down you can still login to the PC as if on the domain, but not have all the resources of the server. Combine this with Offline Files and you are good. I do this for my laptop. I take it with me all over, do my work, and when I connect it to my domain again all changes are automatically synchronized back to the server.

[bfdexp]

Once again thanks so much for all the help.

1. Sorry typo, what I meant to say is MS SBS 2003. I understand greatly they are two different things and we are looking towards SBS 2003. My only concern is if SBS has as much power managing a VPN as the full Server 2003.

2. We figured 160gigs since we will only be using a database management program that is SQL based and its database is only up to 500mb with 4 years of use. Other than that it will be word and excel documents. Do you feel that the dual 160GB HDs in a Raid 1 (mirroring) setup is sufficient back-up? We are also looking at a tape solution because although the raid would provide backup, it would not be protected for say a fire. Off site backup is a concern for this reason.

Partitioning the server would be a good idea and will probably have that done in the factory. Would most likely put SBS in one and the applications/ data in the other. 30GB is what you recommend for the SBS partition?

3. Only state a VPN because that is what we are using now. We run our database management SQL software through a VPN managed by a SonicWall TZ170 and a DSL Internet connection. As for the server, we are just using a XP box which serves as a server. Not too fast but livable, would a true server environment not be able to survive in this way?

4. Sorry, let me explain in more detail. What I am concerned about is that the three computers at two remote locations would not be able to be part of the network ran by the server. All of the computers are now connected from their three locations via a VPN and the created network works fine. However when we set up a Server at our main location and connect our two computers to it here and the three others at the other remote locations, will they all be the same? We want the three remote and two local computers all to be connected to the server and on the domain.

They all will be hard wired and we would like all the computers to be the same. A user can log-in and BANG, there is there files and desktop environment. So what I am asking is if there will be any issues with adding computers to the domain and server that are at remote locations and connected via a VPN managed by a VPN router at each location, all of which are on the domain.

[YeOldeStonecat]

I prefer to do site to site VPN tunnels using hardware..meaning....you have a Sonicwall TZ...you're set. IMO hardware VPN will always be better than software VPN. Yes SBS has as much VPN ability as vanilla Server..it's the same core OS underneath.

Yes as long as the VPN tunnels are setup properly, they'll see the server just fine...I prefer to setup full time VPN connections between sites using a router at each site...do a "router to router VPN tunnel"..even if just 1x PC at the satellite. However...performance will vary depending upon what it is they are trying to do. If the server is hosted on enough upload, and just a single satellite user per location, and no heavy internet usage at the main office..you can get decent tunnel throughput..enough to run Outlook client to Exchange...and a SQL client based package. May take a minute to launch..but it'll work. Yet..some other software like some accounting packages won't like skinny bandwidth. In those cases...utilize the excellent remote desktop feature SBS has built into it.....Remote Web Workplace. Setup a cheap thousand dollar workstation to run headless at the main office..have the remote sites RWW to it...performs great!

Do not ever think of RAID in the same sentence as backup. RAID is only there to keep data intact if a hard drive goes belly up. It is not there to prevent/restore corrupted data, or user deleted data, or corruption of database/data from something, you cannot "restore" from RAID. You want removable media you can rotate throughout the week for proper backup.

[bfdexp]

Thanks again,

Our plan is to utilize what we are using now which is site to site VPN via our TZ170s which are at each location. So really what you are saying is we just have to place the server into our current VPN setup and use the server to manage the management software package and desktop environments, while the TZ170s will run the VPNs.

We understand the RAID 1 is not a true backup and will just keep us online if the primary hard drive fails. A fire or other incident can easily case lose of data, so that is why we are considering a tape drive or other method. What do you recommend for a good backup, tape seems to be the standard?

[scubagal]

I'm no authority, but I'm not sure that tape is the standard anymore. I am hearing more and more about CDP(continuous data protection). Revivio is one software maker for CDP. You may want to concider it.

[ErikD]

Tape is still the standard. You can do things like data replication to an identical server in a hosting facility. Then in the event of any failure of the main site you are instantly (well almost) back up and running on the backup server. For the most part though tape is still the way to go for a general backup solution. You can do a complete restore to a new server, or just do a data restore, etc. RAID is just to give you a buffer. A drive fails and it isn't a huge deal to get it replaced and data put on in a matter of minutes. You will stay up and running on the other drive(s) and replace the failed one at a later time.

[YeOldeStonecat]

What do you recommend for a good backup, tape seems to be the standard?

I've been moving away from tapes....over the past few years, IMO, they've been pushed in capacity to the point where they aren't as reliable. Removable disks have become more and more common...and it's what I've been using lately. Such as Iomegas REV drive, and Dells PowerVault RD1000.

[bfdexp]

lol, Ye in fact we are looking at the PowerVault as our backup solution! What do you think of it, from what we were told you drag and drop the folders you want to backup on the server, set them to a schedule and thats it. Just insert a drive it downloads and you are ready to go...

[ErikD]

Use SBS included backup software. Once you have a server everything should be stored there anyway, and nothing on desktops. Then run the backup automatically each night and let it do a full backup. Everything is saved to the backup device (doesn't matter what it is tape, HD, DVD, etc).

[YeOldeStonecat]

lol, Ye in fact we are looking at the PowerVault as our backup solution! What do you think of it, from what we were told you drag and drop the folders you want to backup on the server, set them to a schedule and thats it. Just insert a drive it downloads and you are ready to go...

It can be done with drag 'n drop...pretty much seen like a removable USB drive or a Zip drive...however...most people prefer an un-attended backup. Meaning...set it to perform backup during non-production hours..such as starting a backup job at 11pm. Come in the next morning...all you do is change the backup media.

The PowerVault RD1000 comes with crappy 3rd party backup software...whatever the heck current version of Yosemite STAC software is..which I can't stand. I use the native backup utility in Small Business Server 2003..which is quite nice. Or..on vanilla 2003 server...if all you're backing up is files...the native backup utility still works fine. One note....they look for either tape drives, or hard drive letters....and won't work natively with removable storage..which the RD1000 is. However...a little trick...you can backup across networks...so I share the RD1000 using the name "vault", then..."trick" the backup utility into backing up to the network share of the vault. Such as \\server1\vault

[bfdexp]

For now we will use the powervault to backup our wanna-be server, XP box. When we get our real server, we will hook the device to it and rig it to backup the entire server every night using SBS's backup utility with the YE method of "faking the share", lol. Thanks again and for the pointers.