On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:34:24 +0100, Simon Hobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dragan Krnic wrote: > >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.
I think Dragan and Simon summarized what I was looking for extremely well. > > That's how I read it too. Does he keep his 10 Samba servers and add > another 10 Windows servers to do terminal services, or does he put > his file and print services on the same Windows servers and only have > 10 servers to manage ? > > I suppose a few things for him to think about would be : > > 1) Does he intend separating File/print services from Terminal > services (for performance reasons ?) in the future ? If so, then it > would make sense to leave the file/print servers that are already > there as they are rather than migrate them to the one server and > separate them out again later. I think - if there are to be tsrvs in each location - then the integration of that and file/print would stay assuming they were never merged to start with .. I havent yet run any benchmarks to see how long files take to print over the network > > 2) Are there any specific management benefits either way ? It's not > so much "are 10 servers easier to manage than 20" but "is a group of > Windows servers easier to manage than a group of Windows servers plus > a group of Linux/Samba servers". This is very much down to the > experience of the individual/team, but I would guess that since they > already have these servers then they are probably also comfortable > with administering them. What it does is alleviate the need to administer workstations, since they will all be thin clients. So in essence, for each terminal server I roll, I take away 5-7 XP workstations. Thus reducing my adminisering to a single box that has been semi-designed for remote administration What that ad though is that if the remote TSRV goes down I am semi screwed, I will have a backup central one that I can easily deploy the thin clients into > > 3) Are there any performance/reliability/capacity issues with the > existing servers ? If so then it may work out cheaper to spec the new > servers to handle both roles than it is to upgrade/replace the > existing hardware. samba servers are working termendously - and although are older machines, are handling the load without hiccup > > 4) What is your budget, and what are the relative costs ? Does the > per-user Terminal Services licence cover the file and print services > when the user is using only the terminal services ? If so then there > is minimal cost to combine the two services. On the other hand, if > you have to add File/Print client licences then this could add up to > a fair wad of cash. thats where M$ bites you - in order to use TSRV you need file/print CALS as well - the way they put it is that a standard CAL is for authentication (this covers file/print), a T-CAL is for using terminal services > > 5) Other than File/Print services, are there any other reasons for > keeping a Linux server on site ? necuase the linux boxes are a joy to administer - a windows controlled domain is not as much Eg, do you want to run the ISC DHCP > server (no Windows version I believe), or will the MS DHCP server do > you ? > we dont do too much crazy with dhcp, so vaniall either way > Just a few things to ponder over. But at the end of the day, everyone > has to make a decision on what works for them - and leaving > 'religious fervour' out of it, we can't answer it for him. > > Simon > > -- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba