How do I set up a small network?

[Kroze]

I'm a noob so forgive me o great one for these questions.

At my old job, when I boot into windows, i'm prompted to log onto a network similar to this..

Text



How do I go about setting up a network at home so that when you first go into windows, you're prompted with a network logon screen (with option to log onto the network or just log onto the system)

Like this...
Text

And once you log onto the network, how can I create a virtual network drive (say F🙂 for that user specifically to store stuff?

 

[Markbnj]

You'd have to set up a windows domain, which most small office/home office networks don't have, just due to the extra issues and lack of real benefits.

 

[JackMDS]

You do not have an option like this in Windows at home using peer-to-peet Network, without logging first to the system you can not connect to the Network.

 

[Kroze]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
You'd have to set up a windows domain, which most small office/home office networks don't have, just due to the extra issues and lack of real benefits.

So what kind of business would have a windows domain set up and what is the real benefit of it?

My old job is in the financial field & we have over thousands of employees.

My new job (government), is in a completely different field but they also run their network just like it. Requiring user to log onto the network in order to have internet access, access to network drive, printers, etc...

 

[Kroze]

So what's the option for me for setting up a network within my house?

I have 4 computers total and there's no way for me to set up 1 pc as a centralized server and the other 3 to log on individually and have specific access/security level?

 

[JackMDS]

When using more than 10 computers you have to use Sever OS (like Windows 2003).
Windows Client OS? are limited in the amount of connection that can be maintained.

Real server OS with a Domain controller provides central control for all the Network and a Level of security that is Not available with peer-to-peer.
So almost all businesses that are bigger than a small Office at Home usually use Server OS.

Microsoft provides Trial Versions of the Sever OS' you can give it a try.

http://technet.microsoft.com/e...wsserver/bb430831.aspx

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sbs/bb738394.aspx

 

[brad310]

Originally posted by: Kroze
So what's the option for me for setting up a network within my house?

I have 4 computers total and there's no way for me to set up 1 pc as a centralized server and the other 3 to log on individually and have specific access/security level?

W2k3 Server comes with 5 licenses, so it would fill the role you need without costs going through the roof...even though still an un-necessary expense IMHO. But, to do what you want, you would need a server OS, set up your domain, and use Active Directory to create the computer and user accounts, then add the computers to the domain. You also need to think a little about the network layout and how you want to set it up...static or dhcp. If DHCP, then you would want to add that role to your domain controller.

 

[RebateMonger]

There are many advantages of using a Windows Domain.

Of use for even the smallest office is the single User Account database. Without a Domain, every single computer has its own set of user accounts. Trying to control "who can access what" can be VERY troublesome. With a Domain, you have one list of Users and can set access to every single computer, file, printer, drive, etc. with a couple of mouse clicks.

Being able to set office-wide security policies on all PCs, being able to modify or install software all PCs without touching the PCs, and controlling remote access, are just a few of the other advantages.

Actually, once a Domain is established, it's a LOT easier (cheaper) to manage the PCs in an office.

 

[degibson]

I haven't looked very closely at this link, but supposedly there is a free version of CentOS Linux that aims to be a home-scale domain controller.

 

[jcmuse]

what kind of specific access/security are you talking about? if you just want to create a shared folder that only specific computers can access, you can do that with ntfs/file share permissions: http://articles.techrepublic.c...-10877_11-6152061.html

out of curiosity, why would you want to have users login in to a domain other than the reason above? seems kind of odd to me that you'd want to do much user lockdown in a home environment.

 

[jaqie]

To be succinct, if you don't already have TWO dedicated servers and at least ten client computers (computers people use directly) then it is simply not the right route to take to set up a domain. The reason I said two, is that with windows, once you set up a server to be the PDC (primary domain controller) it basically wrenches that up to such a high priority that that server is dog-slow doing any other task it is set (like say being a file server) so a second server machine would be bare minimum to get any good performance... and all this trouble would simply not be worth it unless you actually had ten or more client PCs. In short, you do not want a domain at home with your setup, and a simple peer to peer home network would be perfect for you.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jaqie
To be succinct, if you don't already have TWO dedicated servers and at least ten client computers (computers people use directly) then it is simply not the right route to take to set up a domain. The reason I said two, is that with windows, once you set up a server to be the PDC (primary domain controller) it basically wrenches that up to such a high priority that that server is dog-slow doing any other task it is set (like say being a file server) so a second server machine would be bare minimum to get any good performance... and all this trouble would simply not be worth it unless you actually had ten or more client PCs. In short, you do not want a domain at home with your setup, and a simple peer to peer home network would be perfect for you.

So how do the Small Business Servers work?
AD controllers left standing dont kill a machine provided it was built after the year 2000. And arent serving hundreds or thousands of clients(like this scenario).
My old Win2003 box at home did DHCP, File serving, DNS, VPN, and AD on an Athlon XP 2400 and 1GB of ram. Its CPU useage was typically 3-5%.

Having a second AD controller in house is nice for redundancy in case the hardware fails or a bad patch\application install sends the OS into a death spiral. But it isnt a requirement. Many business's run a single Small Business Server that does AD, DNS, DHCP, VPN, ISA, file serving, and Exchange.

 

[jaqie]

My information is slightly outdated, then, but still mostly right... 😛
ok so still the OP said that he did not want a dedicated server, so two or one, that's still more then none, and still basically useless for his network.

 

[Kroze]

Thank you for your input guys.

Another question i have is, say that i was to format & reinstall windows xp on a client pc that's previously connected to a domain. With a fresh version of windows installed, how do I go about setting the pc up so that when it boot up, you're prompted to log onto the domain?


Where do I go to set the setting or what do I need to set it up so that I can log onto the domain?

 

[JackMDS]

When you setup the Network parameters it has two options.

1. To Join a Workgroup.

2. To Join a Domain.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: jaqie
The reason I said two, is that with windows, once you set up a server to be the PDC (primary domain controller) it basically wrenches that up to such a high priority that that server is dog-slow doing any other task it is set (like say being a file server) so a second server machine would be bare minimum to get any good performance...

Uh...I have dozens of offices with two to fifty PCs where they use a single (mostly SBS 2003) server for all their needs. Many of these servers also have SQL installed, but certainly aren't heavy-duty users of the SQL Server.

None have ever complained about slow server performance. A Domain Controller actually does very little work performing its daily functions. The real workhorses are Exchange Server, SQL Server in most single-server solutions.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: jaqie
The reason I said two, is that with windows, once you set up a server to be the PDC (primary domain controller) it basically wrenches that up to such a high priority that that server is dog-slow doing any other task it is set (like say being a file server) so a second server machine would be bare minimum to get any good performance...

Uh...I have dozens of offices with two to fifty PCs where they use a single (mostly SBS 2003) server for all their needs. Many of these servers also have SQL installed, but certainly aren't heavy-duty users of the SQL Server.

None have ever complained about slow server performance. A Domain Controller actually does very little work performing its daily functions. The real workhorses are Exchange Server, SQL Server in most single-server solutions.

I know I'm way out of my league here as far as networking stuff goes, but I just wanted to add that I have a Server 2003 machine serving as a domain controller and file server with 4 additional machines in the house. Every single machine in my house run at 100% processor usage 24/7, including the server, and I've had no problems with it. So I wouldn't be too worried about the domain controller tasking puts on it's workload. (now back to lurking and reading)

 

[jaqie]

RebateMonger: If you had checked my responses you would see that I had already basically admitted I was wrong about two, and one server would have done it.