There is a small security "hook" to this question, but I realize that
this is off topic. If someone would like to refer me to a more
appropriate group I'll gladly shutup. But since the knowledge of this
group seems broad . . .
Apparently I am the resident "expert" on all things computaional.
Apparently they have no idea how little I know. But here goes anyway
and I appreciate the indulgence:
My wife's company is moving operations to a new office and they are
taking the opportunity to upgrade their network. It's a small company.
Two principals, four staff, no major growth immediatly.
They need to be able to VPN remotely and access calendar, email and
files off of the office server, (that's the hook, but not the question)
and of course the server needs to support all the in house connections too.
The question then is how much of a "Server" is needed? My experience in
my office is with peer networks. One of the consultants is trying to
sell them a "Small Office Server" at a cost of about $6k, plus
installation and support. I've been asked why it costs so much and I
have no idea how to answer. Any thoughts?
John Hyde <EJhyd@netscape.net> writes:
> There is a small security "hook" to this question, but I realize that
> this is off topic. If someone would like to refer me to a more
> appropriate group I'll gladly shutup. But since the knowledge of this
> group seems broad . . .
I read other windows newsgroups...and haven't found one where folks
are of sufficient horsepower to answer your question either.
> Apparently I am the resident "expert" on all things
> computaional. Apparently they have no idea how little I know.
Hee hee...
> But here goes anyway and I appreciate the indulgence:
>
> My wife's company is moving operations to a new office and they are
> taking the opportunity to upgrade their network. It's a small
> company. Two principals, four staff, no major growth immediatly.
>
> They need to be able to VPN remotely and access calendar, email and
> files off of the office server, (that's the hook, but not the
> question)
Something like a Sonicwall VPN device will probably get the call here
I assume? I'd suggest a standalone device vs putting more
potentially misconfigurable software aggregated on the one server
(particularly if it's a Windows server and the in-office computer
knowledge is as low as you say).
> and of course the server needs to support all the in house
> connections too.
Shouldn't need to be anything terribly special. But exact
requirements depend on the details of what calendar, email and such
are doing. The remote nature doesn't really add to the load. Are
these folks all in one office currently, and doing this stuff? If so,
then the server sizing need be no different as the VPN is going to be
positioned such that from the server perspective, nothing has changed
other than perhaps the network latency.
> The question then is how much of a "Server" is needed? My experience
> in my office is with peer networks. One of the consultants is trying
> to sell them a "Small Office Server" at a cost of about $6k, plus
> installation and support. I've been asked why it costs so much and I
> have no idea how to answer. Any thoughts?
That does sound like a lot. My wheelhouse is in offices just a hair
smaller than the one you're dealing with. I've thus far managed to
avoid Small Office Server.
Is their email server hosted in house, or handled by their ISP? How
about calendaring? The file sharing need is dead easy. Any ole Linux
box with SAMBA on it would do nicely, or any ole windows xp pro box
for that matter. Managing accounts is about all that's needed there.
If I were in your shoes I'd take the opportunity to be researching
open source solutions to their requirements. Off hand, I'm not sure
what sort of workgroup calendaring is out there in open source.
Anyone happen to know?
on 10/12/2005 10:47 AM Todd H. said the following:
> John Hyde <EJhyd@netscape.net> writes:
>
>>There is a small security "hook" to this question, but I realize that
>>this is off topic. If someone would like to refer me to a more
>>appropriate group I'll gladly shutup. But since the knowledge of this
>>group seems broad . . .
>
>
> I read other windows newsgroups...and haven't found one where folks
> are of sufficient horsepower to answer your question either.
>
>
>>Apparently I am the resident "expert" on all things
>>computaional. Apparently they have no idea how little I know.
>
>
> Hee hee...
>
>
>>But here goes anyway and I appreciate the indulgence:
>>
>>My wife's company is moving operations to a new office and they are
>>taking the opportunity to upgrade their network. It's a small
>>company. Two principals, four staff, no major growth immediatly.
>>
>>They need to be able to VPN remotely and access calendar, email and
>>files off of the office server, (that's the hook, but not the
>>question)
>
>
> Something like a Sonicwall VPN device will probably get the call here
> I assume? I'd suggest a standalone device vs putting more
> potentially misconfigurable software aggregated on the one server
> (particularly if it's a Windows server and the in-office computer
> knowledge is as low as you say).
>
>
>>and of course the server needs to support all the in house
>>connections too.
>
>
> Shouldn't need to be anything terribly special. But exact
> requirements depend on the details of what calendar, email and such
> are doing. The remote nature doesn't really add to the load. Are
> these folks all in one office currently, and doing this stuff?
Well, yes, but it doesn't work right and the server crashes
periodically. (Any server crash is too often, but they apparently have
problems a couple of times a week.) I think (but don't know) that the
problem is configuration or software choice, not the hardware. If I
remember correctly, the current server is an HP 9600 small office
some-damn-thing, but they also use it as a work station. Frankly, I
thing they solve all their problems by buying a workstation.
If so,
> then the server sizing need be no different as the VPN is going to be
> positioned such that from the server perspective, nothing has changed
> other than perhaps the network latency.
>
>
>>The question then is how much of a "Server" is needed? My experience
>>in my office is with peer networks. One of the consultants is trying
>>to sell them a "Small Office Server" at a cost of about $6k, plus
>>installation and support. I've been asked why it costs so much and I
>>have no idea how to answer. Any thoughts?
>
>
> That does sound like a lot. My wheelhouse is in offices just a hair
> smaller than the one you're dealing with. I've thus far managed to
> avoid Small Office Server.
>
> Is their email server hosted in house, or handled by their ISP?
I think off site since my wife can access her webmail even when "the
server is down"
> How about calendaring?
In house, using outlook. which does not do what they want.
The file sharing need is dead easy. Any ole Linux
> box with SAMBA on it would do nicely, or any ole windows xp pro box
> for that matter. Managing accounts is about all that's needed there.
>
The big problem with comparing to the current setup is that I think they
are doing it wrong for an operation that size.
AFAIK, they are routing through the "Server" too, and they have a PC
based firewall (linux? don't know). I have not looked, but it sounds like:
Internet <-> Firewall <-> Server/workstation/router <-> switch <-> users
but then maybe the phrase "Server Down" is generic to either the
"Server" or the "Firewall"
It is clear to me they need to reconfigure. Just not necessarily that
they need new equipment.
on 10/12/2005 11:38 AM Jim said the following:
> John Hyde wrote...
>
SNIP
>>The question then is how much of a "Server" is needed? My experience in
>>my office is with peer networks. One of the consultants is trying to
>>sell them a "Small Office Server" at a cost of about $6k, plus
>>installation and support. I've been asked why it costs so much and I
>>have no idea how to answer. Any thoughts?
>
>
>
> It costs so much because you're a company, and companies pay stupid money to
> consultants :) Shop around ffs.
>
> I'd imagine much of this cost is for proprietary software, and the licences. Can
> you name the software you're being sold? You should be able to do any of it with
> open source, as per Todd H.'s post. Browse the contents of sourceforge or a
> linux CD if you want 'free' equivalents. If you only have a small number of
> connections you could even use Win2k.
>
> You are also paying, up front, for 'support'. What is the figure without this
> addition?
>
Don't know, but I just got a call and invited to be a "fly on the wall"
when the new consultants give their formal presentation this afternoon.
Wifey promises to take a fly-swatter to me if I "Buzz" ;-)
John Hyde <EJhyd@netscape.net> writes:
> Well, yes, but it doesn't work right and the server crashes
> periodically. (Any server crash is too often, but they apparently
> have problems a couple of times a week.) I think (but don't know)
> that the problem is configuration or software choice, not the
> hardware. If I remember correctly, the current server is an HP 9600
> small office some-damn-thing, but they also use it as a work station.
> Frankly, I thing they solve all their problems by buying a
> workstation.
Funky.
> I think off site since my wife can access her webmail even when "the
> server is down"
Okay. Yeah, I'd stick with externally hosted email too. It's hard to
beat the redundancy that a colo provider has vs relying on a business
dsl connection and hte power being on at a general office all the
time.
> > How about calendaring?
> In house, using outlook. which does not do what they want.
What is it they want out of calendaring? Do they just need a place
for a group calendar, or do they need meeting invitations integrations
and the like?
> AFAIK, they are routing through the "Server" too, and they have a PC
> based firewall (linux? don't know). I have not looked, but it sounds
> like:
>
> Internet <-> Firewall <-> Server/workstation/router <-> switch <-> users
> but then maybe the phrase "Server Down" is generic to either the
> "Server" or the "Firewall"
That tiering seems a little odd as there isn't any routing to do
really if there isn't more than one subnet involved. Mos tlikely that
server is on the same subnet as the switch and probably has just one
network interface. Unless they're running a network based intrusion
detection system on it, I see no reason for it to need to be a router.
The best solution to recommend should factor in something no one has
mentioned yet: what are the skills of the folks who'll be nearest to
the central server? Are they linux folks? Windows folks? What will
they be scared less by with some training? What remote management
is needed?
John Hyde <EJhyd@netscape.net> wrote:
> They need to be able to VPN remotely and access calendar, email and
> files off of the office server, (that's the hook, but not the question)
> and of course the server needs to support all the in house connections too.
> The question then is how much of a "Server" is needed? My experience in
> my office is with peer networks. One of the consultants is trying to
> sell them a "Small Office Server" at a cost of about $6k, plus
> installation and support. I've been asked why it costs so much and I
> have no idea how to answer. Any thoughts?
What else beside VPN is required from this server? BTW: the "server" is
the wrong box to let a VPN end.
Yours, VB.
--
"Ich bin ein freier Mensch und werde jetzt von meinen Freiheitsrechten
Gebrauch machen - und zwar ausgiebig - natürlich nur in dem Rahmen, den
Otto Schily mir noch zur Verfügung stellt."
Wolfgang Clement am 10.10.05 als Noch-Superminister
>There is a small security "hook" to this question, but I realize that
>this is off topic. If someone would like to refer me to a more
>appropriate group I'll gladly shutup. But since the knowledge of this
>group seems broad . . .
>Apparently I am the resident "expert" on all things computaional.
>Apparently they have no idea how little I know. But here goes anyway
>and I appreciate the indulgence:
>My wife's company is moving operations to a new office and they are
>taking the opportunity to upgrade their network. It's a small company.
> Two principals, four staff, no major growth immediatly.
>They need to be able to VPN remotely and access calendar, email and
>files off of the office server, (that's the hook, but not the question)
>and of course the server needs to support all the in house connections too.
>The question then is how much of a "Server" is needed? My experience in
>my office is with peer networks. One of the consultants is trying to
>sell them a "Small Office Server" at a cost of about $6k, plus
>installation and support. I've been asked why it costs so much and I
>have no idea how to answer. Any thoughts?
It costs so much because the consultant needs to be paid at the rate to
which he has become accustomed.
I have no idea what all this "server" is supposed to do, but a $400 compter
running almost any version of Linux could carry out everything you have
listed. If you want to go with Windows, then up it by at least a 1000 to
cover the security updates, the antivirus stuff, etc. and double or triple
the support costs.
Of course since you do not have the expertise, you might require someone
to set it all up for you, which would undoubtedly be the greatest expense.
On 10/12/2005 2:05 PM, Leythos wrote:
> In article <11kqh0adcud3r42@corp.supernews.com>, EJhyd@netscape.net
> says...
>
>>The question then is how much of a "Server" is needed? My experience in
>>my office is with peer networks. One of the consultants is trying to
>>sell them a "Small Office Server" at a cost of about $6k, plus
>>installation and support. I've been asked why it costs so much and I
>>have no idea how to answer. Any thoughts?
>
>
> Small Single Processor server with Mirrored 120GB drives (larger if
> needed), Xeon CPU 2.8ghz, 2GB RAM, 550W PSU, 1500VA UPS, Windows Small
> Business Server 2003 Standard (Windows Server, Exchange, intra company
> web site, Outlook 2003).... about $4K to get hardware and software and
> the 5 licenses - $70 for each above 5.
>
Well the consultant bid $2700 for hardware configured abnout as you
said, $600 for five licenses, another $600 for 5 more because the are
only in sets of five? Plus 5 terminal server licenses for $650 (for VPN use)
Plus Powervault tape backup $1250 and tapes (25) $500
> AV Software that does Server and Exchange Store and RBL/Spam, about $600
> for 10 licenses.
Symantic 10 user AV $750
GFI Anti spam $600
>
> VPN's can be done using PPTP into an cheap appliance or into a real
> firewall (or a Linux solution)... Email can be done remotely via OWA
> (HTTPS / SSL based), file access remotely can be done via Remote Desktop
> through the VPN.
>
Sonicwall $600
Sonicwall support $125
Sonicwall VPN Client licenses 5 for $350
So tell me why not use a cheap appliance . . .?
> That's based on a simple Microsoft solution assuming that you want MS
> and that you already have Windows XP Prof + SP2 on all workstations.
>
No, there's costs to upgrade and then about $6500 to setup, configure
and migrate all the data, test all the parts.
Yeesh!
I'm not sure what the alternatives are. They have some other bids from
folks with high looser quotients.
John Hyde wrote:
> On 10/12/2005 2:05 PM, Leythos wrote:
>
>> In article <11kqh0adcud3r42@corp.supernews.com>, EJhyd@netscape.net
>> says...
>>
>>> The question then is how much of a "Server" is needed? My experience
>>> in my office is with peer networks. One of the consultants is trying
>>> to sell them a "Small Office Server" at a cost of about $6k, plus
>>> installation and support. I've been asked why it costs so much and I
>>> have no idea how to answer. Any thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> Small Single Processor server with Mirrored 120GB drives (larger if
>> needed), Xeon CPU 2.8ghz, 2GB RAM, 550W PSU, 1500VA UPS, Windows Small
>> Business Server 2003 Standard (Windows Server, Exchange, intra company
>> web site, Outlook 2003).... about $4K to get hardware and software and
>> the 5 licenses - $70 for each above 5.
In that config I would always use Dual XEON, to account for future
growth. Properly spec'd,built and maintained SBS boxes should last 5 years.
Badly built ones on the other hand.....
>>
> Well the consultant bid $2700 for hardware configured abnout as you
> said, $600 for five licenses, another $600 for 5 more because the are
> only in sets of five?
5, 10, 25
Plus 5 terminal server licenses for $650 (for VPN
> use)
This cannot be right. SBS 2003 has only 2 terminal services logons, and
they *must* be domain admins. The only way to do a terminal server
session as a user with SBS is buy another box, stick vanilla 2003 on it,
run terminal services. Or run a VPN and enable XP as a remote desktop
host.
> Plus Powervault tape backup $1250 and tapes (25) $500
>
Tapes.... <shudder> Expensive waste of time.
>> AV Software that does Server and Exchange Store and RBL/Spam, about
>> $600 for 10 licenses.
>
> Symantic 10 user AV $750
> GFI Anti spam $600
Use Grisoft for file servers/exchange servers. About 1/2 the price, 2
year license. (so effectively 1/4 the price) Plus it's not riddled which
features which don't actually work and make the system run at a crawl.
>> VPN's can be done using PPTP into an cheap appliance or into a real
>> firewall (or a Linux solution)... Email can be done remotely via OWA
>> (HTTPS / SSL based), file access remotely can be done via Remote
>> Desktop through the VPN.
>>
> Sonicwall $600
> Sonicwall support $125
> Sonicwall VPN Client licenses 5 for $350
>
> So tell me why not use a cheap appliance . . .?
Netgear FVS3*8, or IPCop on old PC, or both.
>
>> That's based on a simple Microsoft solution assuming that you want MS
>> and that you already have Windows XP Prof + SP2 on all workstations.
>>
> No, there's costs to upgrade and then about $6500 to setup, configure
> and migrate all the data, test all the parts.
>
> Yeesh!
For a full windoze domain transfer, including VPN, roaming profiles,
backup, exchange, all server apps, connecting all client workstations,
importing all data should be well under 30 hours (over about 2 weeks,
build, configure, patch the box, run it hard for at least a week before
taking onsite) maximum.
This assumes that existing desktops are in a reasonable state. Is he
charging $200ph or something?
If there is large amounts of development and testing for the internal
intranet this could be understandable. (except IIS sucks)
>
> I'm not sure what the alternatives are. They have some other bids from
> folks with high looser quotients.
>
> Anyway, thanks for all the thoughts.
>
> JH
The good news is a *properly* setup SBS2003 requires very little ongoing
maintenance. About the only time I need to visit my SBS sites are when
the logs I get daily indicate some error (rare), major SP updates (e.g.
SP1) or when a new user starts (most common), plus the generic surprise
backup/security audits.
The sites I manage with SBS set up by clueless IT "tech's" need weekly
handholding and kicking.
E.
On 10/13/2005 3:32 AM, Leythos wrote:
> In article <434e184d$1@mail.netspeed.com.au>, bellyup@the.bar says...
>
>>John Hyde wrote:
>>
>>>On 10/12/2005 2:05 PM, Leythos wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <11kqh0adcud3r42@corp.supernews.com>, EJhyd@netscape.net
>>>>says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The question then is how much of a "Server" is needed? My experience
>>>>>in my office is with peer networks. One of the consultants is trying
>>>>>to sell them a "Small Office Server" at a cost of about $6k, plus
>>>>>installation and support. I've been asked why it costs so much and I
>>>>>have no idea how to answer. Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Small Single Processor server with Mirrored 120GB drives (larger if
>>>>needed), Xeon CPU 2.8ghz, 2GB RAM, 550W PSU, 1500VA UPS, Windows Small
>>>>Business Server 2003 Standard (Windows Server, Exchange, intra company
>>>>web site, Outlook 2003).... about $4K to get hardware and software and
>>>>the 5 licenses - $70 for each above 5.
>>
>>In that config I would always use Dual XEON, to account for future
>>growth. Properly spec'd,built and maintained SBS boxes should last 5 years.
>>Badly built ones on the other hand.....
>
>
> I should have been more specific, single CPU, but Dual Capable. By the
> time they need a second CPU the cost may be cheap enough that purchasing
> Two (so they are matched) may not be an issue.
>
>
>>>Well the consultant bid $2700 for hardware configured abnout as you
>>>said, $600 for five licenses, another $600 for 5 more because the are
>>>only in sets of five?
>>
>>5, 10, 25
>>
>> Plus 5 terminal server licenses for $650 (for VPN
>>
>>>use)
>>
>>This cannot be right. SBS 2003 has only 2 terminal services logons, and
>>they *must* be domain admins. The only way to do a terminal server
>>session as a user with SBS is buy another box, stick vanilla 2003 on it,
>> run terminal services. Or run a VPN and enable XP as a remote desktop
>>host.
>
>
> I agree, something doesn't sound right with the bid - a normal setup has
> TS on it's own box, not the DC, and since SBS doesn't support TS in
> application mode, it sounds like the consultant doesn't understand SBS
> or that he's getting them 2003 Standard - but Standard is $760 OEM, not
> $600.
Hmmm, The line items are:
Op.System MS Windows 2003 SBS w/ 5 user CALs OEM $600
Op.System MS Windows 2003 SBS 5 user CALs add on $600
Remote Access MS Windows 2000 Terminal Server 5 user CALs $650
He said the last was needed for VPN access. There will be one VPN point
to point w/ an owner's home office and the laptops will have VPN
Clients. Is this license requirement related to to the Point to point?
I had always thought that on the Client logins, the VPN server
(Sonicwall in this case), would treat you like you were hard wired in
and route you to the rest of the network. I think I'm coufused about
what the Terminal Server Licenses are for.
>
>
>>>Plus Powervault tape backup $1250 and tapes (25) $500
>>>
>>
>>Tapes.... <shudder> Expensive waste of time.
>
>
> Wrong, there is nothing safer or better. Don't suggest removable drives
> or USB/Firewire Drives, they don't have the reliability and
> connecting/removing them can crash the server - yes, I've seen it happen
> several times with clients that thought it was a good way to go.
>
> Tape may be old, but it's painless, easy, simple, works every time, and
> last a long time.
>
>
>>>>AV Software that does Server and Exchange Store and RBL/Spam, about
>>>>$600 for 10 licenses.
>>>
>>>Symantic 10 user AV $750
>>>GFI Anti spam $600
>>
>>Use Grisoft for file servers/exchange servers. About 1/2 the price, 2
>>year license. (so effectively 1/4 the price) Plus it's not riddled which
>>features which don't actually work and make the system run at a crawl.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>VPN's can be done using PPTP into an cheap appliance or into a real
>>>>firewall (or a Linux solution)... Email can be done remotely via OWA
>>>>(HTTPS / SSL based), file access remotely can be done via Remote
>>>>Desktop through the VPN.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sonicwall $600
>>>Sonicwall support $125
>>>Sonicwall VPN Client licenses 5 for $350
>>>
>>>So tell me why not use a cheap appliance . . .?
>>
>>Netgear FVS3*8, or IPCop on old PC, or both.
>>
>>
>>>>That's based on a simple Microsoft solution assuming that you want MS
>>>>and that you already have Windows XP Prof + SP2 on all workstations.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, there's costs to upgrade and then about $6500 to setup, configure
>>>and migrate all the data, test all the parts.
>>>
>>>Yeesh!
>>
>>For a full windoze domain transfer, including VPN, roaming profiles,
>>backup, exchange, all server apps, connecting all client workstations,
>>importing all data should be well under 30 hours (over about 2 weeks,
>>build, configure, patch the box, run it hard for at least a week before
>>taking onsite) maximum.
>>This assumes that existing desktops are in a reasonable state. Is he
>>charging $200ph or something?
>>
>>If there is large amounts of development and testing for the internal
>>intranet this could be understandable. (except IIS sucks)
>>
There is also a fair amount of time updating 4 workstations to work with
exchange and configguring some other stuff. They are in the $125 range
IIRC.
>>
>>>I'm not sure what the alternatives are. They have some other bids from
>>>folks with high looser quotients.
>>>
>>>Anyway, thanks for all the thoughts.
>>>
>>>JH
>>
>>The good news is a *properly* setup SBS2003 requires very little ongoing
>>maintenance. About the only time I need to visit my SBS sites are when
>>the logs I get daily indicate some error (rare), major SP updates (e.g.
>>SP1) or when a new user starts (most common), plus the generic surprise
>>backup/security audits.
>
>
> My experience with SBS or Standard or Enterprise is the same - we setup
> for remote support as the primary method - no need to be onsite for
> updates, new users, adding printers, etc... all is done remotely - they
> just connect a new printer and we configure it, new users are done when
> asked, SP and software are rolled out nightly after business hours....
>
>
>>The sites I manage with SBS set up by clueless IT "tech's" need weekly
>>handholding and kicking.
>
>
> We got one of those, and once we got done with it, still not setup using
> the System Manager tool - they can't afford the down time to rebuild it
> from scratch - it doesn't take any more time than any other SBS box.
>
>
This is all good to know. That is the main concern in the company. It
needs to work, reliably, and that's why the willingness to invest in an
all "new" (or rebuilt from ground up) network.
Great discussion, I'm learning a lot. Very helpful.
on 10/13/2005 10:19 AM Leythos said the following:
> In article <HumdnVZR89ECF9PeRVn-2A@comcast.com>, EJHyd@netscape.net
> says...
>
>>Hmmm, The line items are:
>>Op.System MS Windows 2003 SBS w/ 5 user CALs OEM $600
>>Op.System MS Windows 2003 SBS 5 user CALs add on $600
>>Remote Access MS Windows 2000 Terminal Server 5 user CALs $650
>>
>>He said the last was needed for VPN access. There will be one VPN point
>>to point w/ an owner's home office and the laptops will have VPN
>>Clients. Is this license requirement related to to the Point to point?
>> I had always thought that on the Client logins, the VPN server
>>(Sonicwall in this case), would treat you like you were hard wired in
>>and route you to the rest of the network. I think I'm coufused about
>>what the Terminal Server Licenses are for.
>
>
> TS allows users to run Applications on the Terminal Server computer as
> though it was their own personal desktop - they start a Remote Desktop
> session on their local computer (at home/on the road) and connect to the
> Terminal Server computer.
>
> SBS2003 does not support "Users" connecting to it in the manner I just
> described - it would have to be a second server, acting as a Terminal
> Server, for the above to work.
>
Ok, I understand that. So either this guy doesn't know what TS is for,
is selling something we don't need, or there is some other reason. I
don't think either of the former so:
So the "Terminal Server" could be the office desktop? Would it make
sense if I had a desktop at the office, and a laptop from home, to VPN
to the network and then use TS to be able to run my Desktop as though I
was sitting at my desk? Then when I was checking my email, the
connection would be like this . . .
I assume I would only do that if it is too expensive to duplicate
application software on my laptop and so I needed to run the application
in a terminal.
John Hyde wrote:
> on 10/13/2005 10:19 AM Leythos said the following:
>
>> SBS2003 does not support "Users" connecting to it in the manner I just
>> described - it would have to be a second server, acting as a Terminal
>> Server, for the above to work.
>
>
> Ok, I understand that. So either this guy doesn't know what TS is for,
> is selling something we don't need, or there is some other reason. I
> don't think either of the former so:
I think he doesn't understand SBS licensing. There are 2 modes for TS -
admin and application (user). Admin means you are a domain admin, doing
admin tasks. All 2000/2003 servers have 2 admin licenses by default. App
mode allows ordinary users to log on and run apps on the box. This
cannot be done on an SBS2003 box.
I just hope like hell he isn't planning to load Outlook on the SBS box.
>
> So the "Terminal Server" could be the office desktop? Would it make
> sense if I had a desktop at the office, and a laptop from home, to VPN
> to the network and then use TS to be able to run my Desktop as though I
> was sitting at my desk? Then when I was checking my email, the
> connection would be like this . . .
>
> laptop <-vpn-> Sonicwall <-Lan-> Desktop <-lan-> SBS2003
Yes, you can do that. You do NOT need any extra licensing to do this
(assuming you are running XP Pro on the desktop), it's just a matter of
adding remote users @ the box and selecting them from the Domain list.
> I assume I would only do that if it is too expensive to duplicate
> application software on my laptop and so I needed to run the application
> in a terminal.
> Am I getting this right?
> Thanks again,
> JH
Usually it's a case of remote users wanting access to a database or
shared app that won't work over low bandwidth rather than software costs.
E.
> In article <434e184d$1@mail.netspeed.com.au>, bellyup@the.bar says...
>
>>In that config I would always use Dual XEON, to account for future
>>growth. Properly spec'd,built and maintained SBS boxes should last 5 years.
>>Badly built ones on the other hand.....
>
>
> I should have been more specific, single CPU, but Dual Capable. By the
> time they need a second CPU the cost may be cheap enough that purchasing
> Two (so they are matched) may not be an issue.
Down here the experience has been that when you do want to add a 2nd CPU
it either isn't available or costs 2-4 times what it would have cost
initially. But that's probably geography related more than anything.
The other main 'must' is ensuring there are at least 4 free memory slots.
>>Tapes.... <shudder> Expensive waste of time.
>
>
> Wrong, there is nothing safer or better. Don't suggest removable drives
> or USB/Firewire Drives, they don't have the reliability and
> connecting/removing them can crash the server - yes, I've seen it happen
> several times with clients that thought it was a good way to go.
I haven't had that experience- in fact it's been the opposite.
>
> Tape may be old, but it's painless, easy, simple, works every time, and
> last a long time.
The cost here is somewhat prohibitive. As I can VPN/remote desktop in if
there is a problem I regularly check everything is OK.
I would often find that people either didn't bother changing tapes or
just kept sticking the same tape in over and over. With removeable
drives I can see the file date easily.
Couple that with the remote reports and I *know* if someone's been
slacking, regardless of the media used.
> My experience with SBS or Standard or Enterprise is the same - we setup
> for remote support as the primary method - no need to be onsite for
> updates, new users, adding printers, etc... all is done remotely - they
> just connect a new printer and we configure it, new users are done when
> asked, SP and software are rolled out nightly after business hours....
Yup - great product if properly done and maintained.
>>The sites I manage with SBS set up by clueless IT "tech's" need weekly
>>handholding and kicking.
>
>
> We got one of those, and once we got done with it, still not setup using
> the System Manager tool - they can't afford the down time to rebuild it
> from scratch - it doesn't take any more time than any other SBS box.
I have about 4 of those. 2 required a bit of reconfigging and are fine.
on 1 the client doesn't care if there is a problem and wants too live
with quirks. The last was so badly installed I had to come in after
hours for a week (7pm - 2am) and do a clean build to new drives. Since
that was done, they haven't had a problem. In 4 months. As it should be.
E.
on 10/13/2005 1:09 PM Leythos said the following:
> In article <11ktd54e5et4gbe@corp.supernews.com>, EJhyd@netscape.net
> says...
<SNIP>
>>So the "Terminal Server" could be the office desktop? Would it make
>>sense if I had a desktop at the office, and a laptop from home, to VPN
>>to the network and then use TS to be able to run my Desktop as though I
>>was sitting at my desk? Then when I was checking my email, the
>>connection would be like this . . .
>
>
> Yes, for small shops that's a perfect method - you Remote Desktop into
> the Workstation at your desk at the office using the VPN.
>
>
>>laptop <-vpn-> Sonicwall <-Lan-> Desktop <-lan-> SBS2003
>
>
> Laptop HOME <> VPN <> INTERNET <> VPN <> Firewall <> LAN SWITCH
>
> From the LAN switch (after you PPTP into the firewall and get a LAN
> address) then from there you RD from your laptop to the Workstation on
> your office desk - keeping in mind that have to enable remote desktop
> connections for user X on that workstation.
>
>
>>I assume I would only do that if it is too expensive to duplicate
>>application software on my laptop and so I needed to run the application
>> in a terminal.
>
>
> Yep, there are other methods, but that's the jist of it.
>
>
>>Am I getting this right?
>
Ok, I think I've finally got it. There is no provision in the plan for a
separate terminal services server, so . . .
>
> Key Points:
>
> 1) SBS2003 does not support users doing a Terminal Server connection and
> running applications/getting a desktop.
>
> 2) VPN's to the Firewall and the Firewall giving an IP on the local
> network at the office (not terminating at the Server).
Right, so If I VPN to a "Peer" network, then I'm just another node in
the network. The VPN connection just being a substitute for an ethernet
cable plugged into the network.
>
> 3) Users connect to a Terminal Server computer or to their own
> workstations in order to work remotely - unless they have a laptop.
>
> 4) Laptop users can do the VPN and setup their computers to Logon to the
> domain via the VPN and it's the same (although slower) as being in the
> office.
Slower because the bandwidth is not there on the VPN tunnel for doing
the work passing the full data back and forth. But with Terminal Server,
all that is getting passed back and forth over the VPN is what shows on
the screen, the keystrokes, etc. If that's the case, then I can explain
to these folks the choice they are making.
OT question about small office server 
Linear Mode
