Re: feasible w/ samba?

2004-10-19 Thread Bart Silverstrim
On Oct 18, 2004, at 2:26 PM, stheg olloydson wrote: --- Bart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, it would be connectivity + bandwidth + geography. Some of the buildings are close together...close enough that you can lean on the wall of one and throw a softball to hit the other. Others are over 20

feasible w/ samba?

2004-10-18 Thread Bart Silverstrim
random brain dropping question...still in the researching stage for implementation. Is it possible to have a setup similar to the following scenario: I have three buildings. There are users that move among the buildings on different days to use NT workstations (Win2K). I'd like to put in four

Re: feasible w/ samba?

2004-10-18 Thread stheg olloydson
it was said: What this would essentially be attempting to achieve is to have a way for a geographically spread out network allow people to easily access their home directories and shares no matter where they logged using local servers acting as time-delayed proxies...all the user login

RE: feasible w/ samba?

2004-10-18 Thread JohnsoBS
-Original Message- From: stheg olloydson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 6:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: feasible w/ samba? it was said: What this would essentially be attempting to achieve is to have a way

Re: feasible w/ samba?

2004-10-18 Thread Bart Silverstrim
On Oct 18, 2004, at 12:37 PM, stheg olloydson wrote: What you have here is a hardware, not software, problem. The root cause is the unreliable connectivity between buildings. To ensure all network resources are always available, use redundant fiber-optic connections and set your routing such that

Re: feasible w/ samba?

2004-10-18 Thread stheg olloydson
--- Bart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, it would be connectivity + bandwidth + geography. Some of the buildings are close together...close enough that you can lean on the wall of one and throw a softball to hit the other. Others are over 20 miles apart, and it's not really 3