Question about a small network

[gscone]

Looking to setup a small home network for my home office.

3 workstations connecting to an HP server running win 2k8.

Does it make sense to even setup an AD domain?

SHould I just go down the workgroup route?

I don't need any permissions setup, just a way to share data files and to run quickbooks on the server, hosting the company file.

All suiggestions are welcomed.

 

[Texashiker]

With 3 workstations, I would just setup a workgroup.

However - if you have important documents that you want backed up, then I would consider setting up the active directory with roaming profiles. That way the users documents get replicated to the server. From the server you could backup to a central location.

 

[imagoon]

AD takes about 15 minutes to setup. I would set up AD personally. Keeps access control a lot easier.

 

[JackMDS]

Main consideration should be what is the best for quick-books (if it is heavily used).

Quick-books is quite finicky when it comes to Network work.

Read this slowly and carefully

http://support.quickbooks.intuit.com/support/Articles/INF12789

 

[gscone]

THanks Jack...All my workstations meet the reqs.

 

[mvbighead]

AD takes about 15 minutes to setup. I would set up AD personally. Keeps access control a lot easier.

This. If you have Server 2008, there is no reason not to setup an AD domain, IMO. And if you have any experience with GP, it can help you out immensely for configuring your workstations, provided they have a Pro OS and not a Home operating system.

 

[owensdj]

As mvbighead said, if you already have the Server 2008 machine, you might as well set up an AD domain. Keep in mind that the Home versions of Windows can NOT join a domain. You'll need Professional or Ultimate.

I've seen small workgroups that use one of the workstations as a non-dedicated Quickbooks server, and it works just fine.

 

[Nothinman]

Yes, no network is too small to be setup properly. Proper DNS and GPOs can be huge even for a small network.

 

[owensdj]

Also keep in mind that if you go with an AD domain you must use your own server as the DNS server for all of your computers that join the domain, rather than using your ISP's DNS servers. You can set your server to forward Internet DNS queries to your ISP's servers.

 

[JackMDS]

If QuickBooks can work as you need it with 3 computers configured as peer-to-peer Network than their is no real justification for the extra expense on Real Server Topology.

 

[imagoon]

If QuickBooks can work as you need it with 3 computers configured as peer-to-peer Network than their is no real justification for the extra expense on Real Server Topology.

What expense?

 

[Nothinman]

Also keep in mind that if you go with an AD domain you must use your own server as the DNS server for all of your computers that join the domain, rather than using your ISP's DNS servers. You can set your server to forward Internet DNS queries to your ISP's servers.

Which is what I meant by proper DNS. Having your own internal domain with DHCP and DNS setup correctly so that machines register with DNS means computer browsing, file sharing, etc will be a lot more reliable.

 

[Emulex]

you are smoking crack if you don't have two AD servers. if you can't afford two (or more) - use workgroups.

Simulate the loss of that 1 single ADS server and see how much fun life will be.

 

[Fardringle]

Two AD servers for three workstations, Emulex?

 

[Nothinman]

you are smoking crack if you don't have two AD servers. if you can't afford two (or more) - use workgroups.

Simulate the loss of that 1 single ADS server and see how much fun life will be.

So everyone running SBS is smoking crack?

 

[Texashiker]

What expense?

What expense? The expense of having an extra system.

My home network = 4 computers + 1 laptop on workgroup.

Work network = 20 - 24 systems along 2 Active Directory servers, 1 windows 2000 server and 1 windows 2008 server.

I can not justify the time, effort or money setting up a server for a simple network.

But, there are some cases where I can see having AD - central location for backups, changing passwords on a regular basis, database intense programs you may not want running on a work station,,,,.

So no, I do not think AD is a one size-fits-all solution.

 

[Nothinman]

What expense? The expense of having an extra system.

My home network = 4 computers + 1 laptop on workgroup.

Work network = 20 - 24 systems along 2 Active Directory servers, 1 windows 2000 server and 1 windows 2008 server.

I can not justify the time, effort or money setting up a server for a simple network.

But, there are some cases where I can see having AD - central location for backups, changing passwords on a regular basis, database intense programs you may not want running on a work station,,,,.

So no, I do not think AD is a one size-fits-all solution.

The up front financial expense is kinda high considering Windows licensing, but the time and effort are minimal. Any competent person should be able to build a Windows server and setup AD in less than an 8hr day. And as long as it's maintained properly, it'll avoid a lot of little, weird issues that will cost you downtime and money over time and most likely be a net win.

 

[Texashiker]

The up front financial expense is kinda high considering Windows licensing,

Lets throw out a couple of examples,


Where my wife works (doctors office), they have 4 workstations and a windows 2003 Active Directory server. they run some accounting software, medical records database and a few other things on the server. They shut the server down everyday at 5:00 and turn it back on again at around 7:30am.

For their needs active directory was probably the best option - due to the security with the applications their using, centralized passwords, centralized backups.

With malware like it is these days, I dont think any critical application should be run on a workstation - accounting software, medical records, engineering database,,, install that stuff on a server. If the workstation gets infected with malware and goes down, its going to be easier to recover the workstation then it is to recover the server.

For a simple home network, I do not see the use in having a server. That is probably why microsoft home server was a failure - nobody bought it.

 

[Nothinman]

Lets throw out a couple of examples,


Where my wife works (doctors office), they have 4 workstations and a windows 2003 Active Directory server. they run some accounting software, medical records database and a few other things on the server. They shut the server down everyday at 5:00 and turn it back on again at around 7:30am.

For their needs active directory was probably the best option - due to the security with the applications their using, centralized passwords, centralized backups.

With malware like it is these days, I dont think any critical application should be run on a workstation - accounting software, medical records, engineering database,,, install that stuff on a server. If the workstation gets infected with malware and goes down, its going to be easier to recover the workstation then it is to recover the server.

For a simple home network, I do not see the use in having a server. That is probably why microsoft home server was a failure - nobody bought it.

Except your argument fails because home Server wasn't a failure, they're in the process of releasing the second version. They seem to be f'ing the drive extender which will hurt it's adoption, but that has no bearing on the first release. Although WHS doesn't do things like AD and DNS so it's not really a great option for small work networks.

 

[Geofram]

For a simple home network, I do not see the use in having a server. That is probably why microsoft home server was a failure - nobody bought it.

I disagree about the need. Most homes are beginning to have multiple computers - even my parents have 2, and they are not tech savy people. Having a server at home can solve the problem of a place to store things (NAS) and a place to back up computers (like WHS does - which I also disagree was a failure, btw).

What they need to add is a central place to manage passwords/users, potentially the ability to control who can get on the internet when, and you'll have something that is very useful for any home with multiple computers. The only trick is getting it to be user friendly enough that you don't have to understand networking to manage it.

Right now you can't do that without Active Directory; but if someone can put together some of the really basic AD functions with auto backups and a file server, you'll have something I think would be very useful for home.

 

[Texashiker]

What they need to add is a central place to manage passwords/users, potentially the ability to control who can get on the internet when, and you'll have something that is very useful for any home with multiple computers. The only trick is getting it to be user friendly enough that you don't have to understand networking to manage it.

This is where I think microsoft has really dropped the ball. If there were a lightweight version of active directory, something that I could install on my computer, instead of a dedicated server, something where I could block my kids internet access after a certain time, block certain sites, block certain keywords on websites, control passwords - I would consider buying such a product.

But one of the problems, products like the ipod touch operate outside the control of active directory. So even if I blocked internet access on the desktop, the kids would just pick up their ipod touch and get online via wireless router. Unless maybe there was centralized DNS, and it was turned off at a certain time, then all dns lookups would be blocked.

Its like there is no middle ground - either buy something like windows home server, small business server, 2003 or 2008 server, or go the workgroup route.

 

[Nothinman]

This is where I think microsoft has really dropped the ball. If there were a lightweight version of active directory, something that I could install on my computer, instead of a dedicated server, something where I could block my kids internet access after a certain time, block certain sites, block certain keywords on websites, control passwords - I would consider buying such a product.

But one of the problems, products like the ipod touch operate outside the control of active directory. So even if I blocked internet access on the desktop, the kids would just pick up their ipod touch and get online via wireless router. Unless maybe there was centralized DNS, and it was turned off at a certain time, then all dns lookups would be blocked.

Its like there is no middle ground - either buy something like windows home server, small business server, 2003 or 2008 server, or go the workgroup route.

Possibly, but I don't think most people are technical to understand that and would immediately turn it all off. I mean hell, look at how many people are clinging to XP out of fear of something new? But Windows does come with parental controls, not that I've played with them enough to know how well they work.

And the iPod not having any restrictions is totally on Apple, not MS. Those kind of features have really just been used by enterprises and Apple really couldn't give two shits about that market. If you want you can use OpenDNS to block sites, as long as your kids aren't smart enough to manually put in different DNS servers.

What they need to add is a central place to manage passwords/users, potentially the ability to control who can get on the internet when, and you'll have something that is very useful for any home with multiple computers. The only trick is getting it to be user friendly enough that you don't have to understand networking to manage it.

Right now you can't do that without Active Directory; but if someone can put together some of the really basic AD functions with auto backups and a file server, you'll have something I think would be very useful for home.

Except there's too much involved in setting AD, it's really simple for some of us but it's too much for most people. And then all of your PCs become dependent on that server running and if it's off nothing works. Most people would opt to have the PCs work independently, I would think.