Server setup for 5-10 PCs

[tlarkin]

First off, thanks for all your replies.

I'd like them to login on any one of the computers.

Then it sounds to me like you want a centralized method of authentication and perhaps network accounts, or portable home directories. I don't admin any windows boxes any more but I am sure they have to have some sort of tech in their product that is similar to portable home directories. PHD's is where it is at man, I love them!

 

[Zatharus]

Then it sounds to me like you want a centralized method of authentication and perhaps network accounts, or portable home directories. I don't admin any windows boxes any more but I am sure they have to have some sort of tech in their product that is similar to portable home directories. PHD's is where it is at man, I love them!

You are referring to roaming profiles (Windows-world terminology). Yes, roaming profiles are wonderful, even on a small network. You can even use them over a VPN in a pinch if you don't mind the horrifically slow access speed. They can be a little more complicated to set up, but it is also easy to migrate to them after you establish your base network/domain.

 

[tlarkin]

You are referring to roaming profiles (Windows-world terminology). Yes, roaming profiles are wonderful, even on a small network. You can even use them over a VPN in a pinch if you don't mind the horrifically slow access speed. They can be a little more complicated to set up, but it is also easy to migrate to them after you establish your base network/domain.

Yeah I don't work in the MS world anymore, it is sometimes very strange on the outside looking in. Yup roaming profiles is exactly what I was talking about. In Unix/Linux they are called Portable Home Directories. On my Open Directory network I can actually sync a user account to a flash drive, and it syncs it to an AES 256-bit encrypted sparse image file. Then I can go to any Mac in the directory and slap in my USB thumb drive and authenticate and pull my home folder from there. Now that is freaking cool.

Yes, VPN is not very fast at all, especially going through firewalls and being routed through NAT.....which is why I like web based remote management if possible, and then you can transfer files via HTTP. Though that is all client based so you must have the software client installed on your target client machines.


Hmm, maybe I should just go ahead and get my MCSA or something to brush up on all the Microsoft stuff. I mean I know it would come back to me if I started working with it again, but I love my niche job working with the *nix boxes.

 

[Zatharus]

I don't blame you, it sounds like a nice gig. The MCSA comes in handy in many circumstances. Though...I wouldn't think the Linux/OSX environment would be one of them.

I've had limited experience with the Linux side of portable home directories, but from what I recall from my last few stints with it, it was MUCH more functional/configurable than the MS variant. I used to do something similar (though much less secure) with my myriad of OS X workstations.

 

[dannaswolcott]

If you want to do all of this, Then Windows 2003 Server would be best for you. I have it here on both my servers in my home and its just wonderful. If you need steps on how to set it up please post.

 

[/\E]

I wouldn't go with a server network with less than 15 machines. I would use a peer-to-peer type. With dedicated user accounts, and from what it sounds like, you might wanna look into Deep Freeze.

 

[Zatharus]

I wouldn't go with a server network with less than 15 machines. I would use a peer-to-peer type. With dedicated user accounts, and from what it sounds like, you might wanna look into Deep Freeze.

I am curious as to your reasons. Care to elaborate?

Also, are you suggesting putting 10 user accounts (one for each potential employee) on each machine??

 

[tlarkin]

I wouldn't go with a server network with less than 15 machines. I would use a peer-to-peer type. With dedicated user accounts, and from what it sounds like, you might wanna look into Deep Freeze.

What if a user forgets their credentials and needs a password change? What if a machine goes down? You going to rely on the end user to back their data up?

 

[/\E]

I am curious as to your reasons. Care to elaborate?

Also, are you suggesting putting 10 user accounts (one for each potential employee) on each machine??

Put an NAS on the network so you can save your work and put passwords/permissions with certain folders.

Not 10 user accounts, rather just 1. Make each machine a single, admin account. But put Deep Freeze on it, so it's almost impossible to mess the machine up with spyware, fragmentation, unneeded junk from the outside, etc. Also, it won't save passwords after a reboot, so it's more secure. Plus, if you have a machine fail, you can just diagnose it(eg. failed HDD) and throw a Ghost/CloneZilla image back on it.

What if a user forgets their credentials and needs a password change? What if a machine goes down? You going to rely on the end user to back their data up?

You don't get multiple accounts. If a machine goes down there is no data there, rather the NAS and the users should be saving their work data to the NAS.

 

[tlarkin]

Put an NAS on the network so you can save your work and put passwords/permissions with certain folders.

Not 10 user accounts, rather just 1. Make each machine a single, admin account. But put Deep Freeze on it, so it's almost impossible to mess the machine up with spyware, fragmentation, unneeded junk from the outside, etc. Also, it won't save passwords after a reboot, so it's more secure. Plus, if you have a machine fail, you can just diagnose it(eg. failed HDD) and throw a Ghost/CloneZilla image back on it.

Here is the flaw with this idea, and while yes it would work it depends on too many "ifs" and in my experience you are best off just doing the work yourself and taking the time to set it up right the first time. Trust me, I have learned the hard way many times.

How are you going to back up data and keep it synchronized to the NAS? Do you actually think your average user knows how to save things to a specific folder? Hell no, they just pile everything they ever create on their desktop. Also, putting up a non managed NAS is not a good idea. That can have some back fires. Someone navigates to the wrong folder deletes certain file, then you are doing data recovery, which is not fun and time consuming.

I would never rely on the end user to do anything other than use the computer. I would much rather do my job and make it so they can just use the computer and I take care of the rest. Sure you can batch file a rsync script out to sync files every night, but what happens if they turn the computer off that night and well, the HD fails at next boot?

Also, a NAS is hardly a good back up solution, I would say that it is a start of a back up solution.

Deepfreeze also causes problems with certain apps. This may or may not be a factor for this network, but I have had to disable deep freeze in the past to get certain things to work on client machines. Deepfreeze is a great app though, I won't bash it other than sometimes it is a pain to deal with.

Also giving the end user admin rights is not always a good idea. They could change their password, install bad software and if it isn't vista basically run everything as root.

I understand if you can't afford a small business enterprise set up, I get that. However, if you set it up the right way and spend a bit of money in the beginning it will benefit you more in the long run. After all time is money and down time is no money.

 

[bilbus]

It depends on what they want to do. I agree that it may be a waste of money in some respects but in others it is better. I would never want to rely on a windows desktop as a server ever in a business. If the client insisted in using a desktop I would load Linux on it. After all, in that case it is just P2P networking. Then I would have a router run DHCP and secure the wireless or disable it if there is no wifi clients.

Why would you install linux on it if he us using quickbooks in a workgroup? Quickbooks does not run on linux .. even if it did it would be MUCH more work to keep it running.

You don't want to install a OS that is harder to support.

 

[bilbus]

Hello All,

Was just wondering if anyone can point me in the right direction in setting up a home office of 5-10 PC's with a server.

Here's what I would like:
All 5-10 PC's to be able to share files and programs like Quickbook (any changes made in quickbook should be seen by all PC's connecting).
All PC's to share same printer
All PC's to access internet.

I've never setup a server before, but I do have some background in computers.

I was thinking of a peer to peer setup, but correct me if I'm wrong, a peer to peer setup can't see "live" updates in Quickbook.

Can this be done with using XP as the server or would I need Server 2003?
I'm assuming setting up a domain would be best?

Is it a fairly easy process to set this up?

TIA

The problem with linux fanboys is they think its best for all situations. This is not one.

He has a few goals.

Quickbooks server - This must be a windows OS.
His existing desktop infustruture is windows, he knows how to use windows. Why would you recomend a solution like linux?

He did not ask for central password / user database, so server 2003 is just a waste. He does not need AD.

Sure SBS will do what he needs, but so will XP.

 

[bilbus]

I am curious as to your reasons. Care to elaborate?

Also, are you suggesting putting 10 user accounts (one for each potential employee) on each machine??

Each desktop would get 1 user (the user who will be logging in) The server computer would get all 10 users.

The users on each desktop only need to access the server .. they do not need to talk to the other desktops.

 

[Zatharus]

Quickbooks does not run on linux ..

Quickbooks server - This must be a windows OS.

Ahem - Please read this article and this article. This is old news. Quickbooks has been able to be hosted in the Linux environment for some time now.

As for offering Linux as an option, perhaps you did not understand the original intent of the offering. XP is not an ideal "server" environment. Sure, you can get it to work to a very limited extent, but it would not be ideal even in this situation. The point was that even a Linux server would be better than using the desktop operating system of Windows XP. If you want to get picky, then perhaps since Tom0822 may be more comfortable with Windows, Linux would not be his best option. In that case, a Windows server OS would be better.

 

[Zatharus]

Each desktop would get 1 user (the user who will be logging in) The server computer would get all 10 users.

The users on each desktop only need to access the server .. they do not need to talk to the other desktops.

Yikes... Simple, in the short run perhaps. Long term...no way. I kindly refer you to posts #19 and #21.

 

[tlarkin]

The problem with linux fanboys is they think its best for all situations. This is not one.

He has a few goals.

Quickbooks server - This must be a windows OS.
His existing desktop infustruture is windows, he knows how to use windows. Why would you recomend a solution like linux?

He did not ask for central password / user database, so server 2003 is just a waste. He does not need AD.

Sure SBS will do what he needs, but so will XP.

Please go back and reread the posts. Everyone said, yes one box running XP will work but it is not the best or most recommended method. Remember that Vista is the first OS to implement the same security protocols as Microsoft's server version in the actual end user OS. Where as Windows XP does not have the same layered security.

Yes, we all know it will work, but it is not the best choice. Then I said if I were to run a server off a desktop I would probably go open source because it will perform better, and not have the limitations that XP would have, like only allowing 15 clients to connect via SMB.

 

[bilbus]

What if a user forgets their credentials and needs a password change? What if a machine goes down? You going to rely on the end user to back their data up?

All data should be saved on the server, thats why he wiould have a central desktop class server. That computer would be backed up.

 

[bilbus]

Ahem - Please read this article and this article. This is old news. Quickbooks has been able to be hosted in the Linux environment for some time now.

As for offering Linux as an option, perhaps you did not understand the original intent of the offering. XP is not an ideal "server" environment. Sure, you can get it to work to a very limited extent, but it would not be ideal even in this situation. The point was that even a Linux server would be better than using the desktop operating system of Windows XP. If you want to get picky, then perhaps since Tom0822 may be more comfortable with Windows, Linux would not be his best option. In that case, a Windows server OS would be better.

It is 3k. He already has the multi user version of windows quick books. You are asking him to spend alot of money on a simple task.

As for XP not being ok for a server, that is just not correct. If all you are doing is sharing some files and using quickbook there is no reason to use a server OS. It's easy to recommend a expensive solution, when your not footing the bill.

As for a Linux server, it will be harder for them to manage it .. being that he has limited computer skills. You are recommending a solution that will cost more and be harder to manage.

The simplest solution, is usually the best one, unless you have the resources to support a more complicated solution.

 

[bilbus]

Yikes... Simple, in the short run perhaps. Long term...no way. I kindly refer you to posts #19 and #21.

I think he should be made aware of the added complexity of adding active directory to the mix. It should not be added lightly.

If this was a buisness with a IT person, no question SBS would be the way to go.

But if it going to be him setting up this server, then no. It will just be setup incorrectly or he will have to pay a consultant to do it for him. At $50-100 a hour that will add up fast. I have been on that side, and i know what it will end up costing. Now add regular service calls you are talking alot of money. Much more then should be required.

99% of the time users only need to login from one location, What i wouold ask tom is why would you need users to login from any location ... rather then just at their own desks. Note that every user will be able to access the server just fine.

As for hardware if you want to buy new hardware thats great and i would support that. If you are trying to make use of existing hardware i understand that also.

If you want a server, and SBS i would recomend Dell, and a PowerEdge 840 server. It is their entry level server and would meet all your requierments. It comes with SBS for central administration and logins. Configured for x32 OS, 4gb memory, SBS 2003 R2 (i would not get 2008), raid 1 HDs, for $1100.

And QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions 9.0 is linux, and its 7k for 15 users. This will have many features he does not need, or want to pay for.

 

[Zatharus]

It is 3k. He already has the multi user version of windows quick books. You are asking him to spend alot of money on a simple task.

As for XP not being ok for a server, that is just not correct. If all you are doing is sharing some files and using quickbook there is no reason to use a server OS. It's easy to recommend a expensive solution, when your not footing the bill.

As for a Linux server, it will be harder for them to manage it .. being that he has limited computer skills. You are recommending a solution that will cost more and be harder to manage.

The simplest solution, is usually the best one, unless you have the resources to support a more complicated solution.

I completely agree with you that the Quickbooks enterprise solutions are much too expensive and unnecessary for this case. I was not asking nor recommending that the user purchase this product. I was merely stating that Quickbooks has had the support for Linux hosting for some time now in order to correct the misinformation presented. You are reading far too much into simple statements here.

As for the Server versus Desktop server environments, the arguments have already been made in both directions before you and do not need rehashing. Please read the entire thread before entering in late to a discussion and resorting to naysaying.