Gustav Brock
gustav at cactus.dk
Thu Jul 29 03:48:01 CDT 2004
Hi Arthur Sounds more like a command center than the workplace of ours ... Anyway, if the Compaq server is up to speed, keep it while it is OK. As for the disks, the minimum size today for new install is 36 GB which means that 18 GB drives are pretty cheap and 9 GB are only available as surplus suppliers. As for your setup I would recommend having one or some machines as servers (file and print; and anything else: database, ftp, web) and one or some machines as workstations. The mix is determined by your demand, but the idea is to split the two functions and skip all peer-to-peer connections because that clears up the situation: where is what? It will always be on a server. Further, you can install or reinstall any workstation without interfering with another workstation. As for the setup of server and users I believe tutorials are available around if no list members are at hand (William knows about the Windows server). This is not my area so I don't. It's a good idea to move some specialized functions like cd-burning to another machine than your primary workstation. If you need access to all email for all user accounts from all workstations, you need a mail server. I (and Stuart I'm sure) will recommend Mercury/32 which is extremely modest regarding hardware. /gustav > Date: 2004-07-28 19:54 > As a member of all the dba lists, I'm all too aware that I'm not the > sharpest knife in the drawer :) So in that spirit, I'd like to poll the > members on this question: > Given X PCs (in my case 3), none SOTA (state of the art), how should I > be thinking of distributing tasks and resources (and also users) across > them? So far my tendency has been to put the fancy stuff (such as dvd+cd > burner) on the fastest box, my development machine. But I'm beginning to > think that this is stupid; that I should move the burner to one of the > slow boxes (they're all quick enough to run wxp), so that I'm not > wasting cycles on my development box doing things like backing up data > to the dvd or violating various music copyrights :) The old boxes don't > do much more than sit there, most of the time. They both run different > versions of Linux as well as wxp, but I only play around with Linux, I'm > far from expert in its use -- it's just a learning experience for me. > I should mention that I also have a pretty ancient Compaq server, with > RAID and twin 400-Mz CPUs, that runs Win Advanced Server 2k. Mostly it > runs nothing but SQL Server 2000 and the 2005 beta. It has mere 18GB > hard disks and that's not likely to change, given the cost of replacing > 5 drives. > 1. I'd like to add Terminal Services to the server so I can demonstrate > to clients how that works when running an Access app. > 2. I want to set up an ftp server (now that I finally understand how to > make it work behind a firewall! Like I said, not the sharpest knife). > Should I put it on the server? There aren't a lot of free GB there, but > I could easily point the server to look for its files on another machine > where there is a big disk available. The ftp server is not really for > public consumption; more like various clients, project collaborators, > colleagues and friends -- passworded entry, no anonymous login, users > profiled to grant and deny various directories -- that sort of thing. > 3. My three boxes are located in a U-shape so that I just spin 90 > degrees and address each one. I try to install apps "chronologically" > according to the abilities of the boxes, i.e., the oldest apps run on > the slowest box (Access 97 is installed only on the oldest box) and > conversely. Some necessary things are installed on every box (i.e., > Office). > 4. I built this "notwork" up step by step, with virtually no knowledge > of how to set up a network. The result, as you might guess, sucks. I > could bore you further with the details, but instead I'd rather ask how > I get from this mess to where I want to be: > a) any user can use any machine, and get her/his profile, > directory access, Outlook.pst, etc. > b) currently it's all screwed up; from one particular box I can > see everything I need to see. Every other box sees parts of the > configuration, and none sees all. I think there is a wizard that will > let me copy the good config to all the other boxes, but I forget what > it's called. > c) should the server contain the instances of software such as > Office, so that I update only one instance and every user hits that > single instance using a shortcut? I.e., shortcut to > \\server\folder\msaccess.exe "MDB2hit". I confess that I have no idea > how this stuff is done. I have worked in places where it was already > working when I got there, so I didn't learn the details. What I knew was > that I could log on from any workstation and get my Office menu, my > Outlook file, my database tools and so on. Didn't matter which station I > used. I entered my uid and pswd and that was that. That's what I want to > build here at home. I realize that there's an issue lurking within: what > happens when I open Outlook from Station A, don't close it, and then > open it from Station B? I don't know. Maybe the rule is that I have to > close station A before opening B. In the ideal world, I wouldn't have to > think about this -- each station's instance would automatically refresh. > 5. I screwed everything up in the various chronological installations. > When Setup asked me for a domain name, I thought that it meant I needed > to have an existing URL. On another box it's registered under WorkGroup. > I want to blow all these definitions away and create domain "D" and then > place all the boxes in said domain, so that any user can logon to any > box and see her stuff, according to her profile (i.e. users Arthur and > Audra administrators and can do anything, while users Howard and Denny > are mere lUsers and cannot shoot themselves in the foot). > How can I get from here to there? Do I have to nuke everything and > everyone and rebuild from scratch? > Any advice from gurus who can turn "notworks" into "networks" profoundly > appreciated. > Arthur