[Samba] Re: Migrate BACK to WINDOWS -> Talk me out of it QUICK

rruegner robert at ruegner.org
Sat Sep 18 10:34:02 GMT 2004

citrix is the solution of many professional companies to solve such 
Problems, its expensive but it works nice.

Chris Tepaske schrieb:

> Sound like you are going for a complete Thin client solution, have you
> thought about Citrix then, expensive but it will give you some redundancy
> through server load balancing and also will allow to manage the thin
> environment better. Bandwidth utilization is much improved with the Citrix
> ICA protocol typically 22K if sound is enabled compared to 64K for the
> Microsoft RDP protocol. 
> Cheers
> Chris Tepaske
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris McKeever [mailto:techjedi at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, 18 September 2004 3:08 PM
> To: Chris Tepaske
> Cc: Dragan Krnic; rruegner; samba at samba.org
> Subject: Re: [Samba] Re: Migrate BACK to WINDOWS -> Talk me out of it QUICK
> 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 <chris at lincom.net.au>
> 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.
>>Chris Tepaske
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Dragan Krnic [mailto:dkrnic at lycos.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 11:03 PM
>>To: rruegner
>>Cc: samba at samba.org
>>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
>>>>Let the Force be with you,
>>>>>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.
>>>>>>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
>>>>>>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

More information about the samba mailing list