samba - Sep 2004 - Migrate BACK to WINDOWS -> Talk me out of it QUICK

Not thinking about migrating back due to issues, it is more due to
implementation needs and a little situation I have been wrestling with
with for a bit now, and would love some feedback

First a little history:

We currently have 10 locations connected via a dedicated 1/2 T-1. 
Last year I migrated from a WINNT domain to a Samba/LDAP domain.  It
has been running great.  Basically did this for license reasons as
well as reduced administrative horror.

NOW:

We have just started to roll out Thinstation thin-clients  that are
connecting to Win TSRV servers.  What is being planned is 1 Terminal
Server per location.  This will significantly reduce the adminstrative
nightmare on multiple Windows boxes and centralize it.  However, this
is where I start to feel that I am having too many servers per
location, seeing that the windows server could do what the Samba
server is doing, I am in debate about moving back to windows (I have
will need to licenses and boxes there anyhows)

One other option is just ot house a ginormous WIN-TSRV at the central
location.  However, I am afraid of issues with printing back to the
remote locations (pushing large files through the 1/2 T-1 to print).

Another option is to remove the samba servers from the remote
location, and just have a samba PDC with authenticating windows tsrv
machines. - I dont like this option for some reason

I really dont want to move away from the SAMBA backend, but at the
same time dont want to stay with it just because I 'like it' and I
'want to'.  So I am looking for discussion/arguements as to why I
should stay with the Samba server and a win-tsrv server, as opposed to
just moving to a MS backend.

Please Obi-won Kenobi, you are our only help! thanks

> We have just started to roll out Thinstation thin-clients  that are
> connecting to Win TSRV servers.  What is being planned is 1 Terminal
> Server per location.  This will significantly reduce the adminstrative
> nightmare on multiple Windows boxes and centralize it.  However, this
> is where I start to feel that I am having too many servers per
> location, seeing that the windows server could do what the Samba
> server is doing, I am in debate about moving back to windows (I have
> will need to licenses and boxes there anyhows)
No! Bad! Having the same box to DC/WINS/DNS/etc... as runs user apps is a
disaster (trust me, I've dismantled & refactored the networks of shops
that
tried to put everything on one windows machine). 
> One other option is just ot house a ginormous WIN-TSRV at the central
That would be my choice.
> location.  However, I am afraid of issues with printing back to the
> remote locations (pushing large files through the 1/2 T-1 to print).
Verses all the filesystem and other support (profiles, WINS, DNS, LDAP, etc...)
traffic?  Use QoS to relagte the print traffic to second-class status and/or
tunnell the print traffic through a compressor (postscript is wonderfully
compressible, and some printers support compression themselves).
 
> Another option is to remove the samba servers from the remote
> location, and just have a samba PDC with authenticating windows tsrv
> machines. - I dont like this option for some reason
Is the TS actually useful without a connection to the central servers (database,
middleware, etc...)?  Do you still have stand-alone workstations, laptops,
etc..?  The TS probably caches the profile/login anyway so it might remain
usable for a time even if the circuit it down.
> I really dont want to move away from the SAMBA backend, but at the
> same time dont want to stay with it just because I 'like it' and I
> 'want to'.  So I am looking for discussion/arguements as to why I
> should stay with the Samba server and a win-tsrv server, as opposed to
> just moving to a MS backend.
Whatever your have - samba or not - don't pile it all on one machine, and
certainly not on a terminal server running user apps.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:17:21 -0500, Chris McKeever <techjedi@gmail.com>
wrote:
> One other option is just ot house a ginormous WIN-TSRV at the central
> location.  However, I am afraid of issues with printing back to the
> remote locations (pushing large files through the 1/2 T-1 to print).
My comment is not strictly samba related but if your thinking of
running a Windows Terminal farm you should look at Citrix Presentation
Server (AKA Metaframe).
The bells and whistles you gain by using it make it worthwhile (load
balancing, client printer redirection, better client/server protocol).
Specifically, printing to client printers under Citrix/ICA is A LOT
easier to manage than just a straight RDP session.

If you are considering running terminal servers which may access samba
servers, you should be aware of the effects the network redirector in
Windows Terminal Server has on Samba processes. Theres stuff in the
archives about it.

cheers
Andrew


-- 
"If you wash lousy clothing at low temperatures, all you get is cleaner
lice" - Dr John Maunder

Hi Chris,
sorry but i am not clear what is your Question?
Regards

Chris McKeever schrieb:
> Not thinking about migrating back due to issues, it is more due to
> implementation needs and a little situation I have been wrestling with
> with for a bit now, and would love some feedback
> 
> First a little history:
> 
> We currently have 10 locations connected via a dedicated 1/2 T-1. 
> Last year I migrated from a WINNT domain to a Samba/LDAP domain.  It
> has been running great.  Basically did this for license reasons as
> well as reduced administrative horror.
> 
> NOW:
> 
> We have just started to roll out Thinstation thin-clients  that are
> connecting to Win TSRV servers.  What is being planned is 1 Terminal
> Server per location.  This will significantly reduce the adminstrative
> nightmare on multiple Windows boxes and centralize it.  However, this
> is where I start to feel that I am having too many servers per
> location, seeing that the windows server could do what the Samba
> server is doing, I am in debate about moving back to windows (I have
> will need to licenses and boxes there anyhows)
> 
> One other option is just ot house a ginormous WIN-TSRV at the central
> location.  However, I am afraid of issues with printing back to the
> remote locations (pushing large files through the 1/2 T-1 to print).
> 
> Another option is to remove the samba servers from the remote
> location, and just have a samba PDC with authenticating windows tsrv
> machines. - I dont like this option for some reason
> 
> I really dont want to move away from the SAMBA backend, but at the
> same time dont want to stay with it just because I 'like it' and I
> 'want to'.  So I am looking for discussion/arguements as to why I
> should stay with the Samba server and a win-tsrv server, as opposed to
> just moving to a MS backend.
> 
> Please Obi-won Kenobi, you are our only help! thanks

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. Centralizing the Terminal Server
on a big machine would entail dramatic traffic load on
his thin 1/2 T-1 wire, even if he leaves one Samba
server on each site for files and printing. So basically
he asks: Does it not make more sense to just add file
and print services to the MS Windows Terminal Servers ?

And the answer is: Of course, it doesnt!
You don't wanna be on the wrong side of the Force, 
do you, Chris?

The way I see it, Chris should put his w2k3 in a
vmware sandbox on his quad opteron samba server,
ideally. Then install some NX magic and live
happily ever after, with one central Samba server,
(+ stand-by) subleting a couple of w2k3 avatars 
under vmware. Or vice versa.

Let the Force be with you,
Yoda
> sorry but i am not clear what is your Question?
>
>> Not thinking about migrating back due to issues, 
>> it is more due to implementation needs and a little 
>> situation I have been wrestling with for a bit now, 
>> and would love some feedback
>> 
>> First a little history:
>> 
>> We currently have 10 locations connected via a 
>> dedicated 1/2 T-1. Last year I migrated from a 
>> WINNT domain to a Samba/LDAP domain. It has been 
>> running great. Basically did this for license 
>> reasons as well as reduced administrative horror.
>> 
>> NOW:
>> 
>> We have just started to roll out Thinstation 
>> thin-clients  that are connecting to Win TSRV servers.  
>> What is being planned is 1 Terminal Server per location.  
>> This will significantly reduce the adminstrative
>> nightmare on multiple Windows boxes and centralize it.
>> However, this is where I start to feel that I am having 
>> too many servers per location, seeing that the windows 
>> server could do what the Samba server is doing, 
>> I am in debate about moving back to windows 
>> (I have will need to licenses and boxes there anyhows)
>> 
>> One other option is just ot house a ginormous WIN-TSRV 
>> at the central location. However, I am afraid of issues 
>> with printing back to the remote locations 
>> (pushing large files through the 1/2 T-1 to print).
>> 
>> A Another option is to remove the samba servers from the 
>> remote location, and just have a samba PDC with 
>> authenticating windows tsrv machines. - I dont like this 
>> option for some reason 
>> 
>> I really dont want to move away from the SAMBA backend, 
>> but at the same time dont want to stay with it just because 
>> I 'like it' and I 'want to'. So I am looking for 
>> discussion/arguements as to why I should stay with the 
>> Samba server and a win-tsrv server, as opposed to
>> just moving to a MS backend.
>> 
>> Please Obi-won Kenobi, you are our only help! thanks

If you can't be more specific than

   "Combine whatever is fitting best to your need and the users
needs",

I don't see what your point is.
> i see no problem to have
> different kinds of servers in one Network, if it makes sense
> from the desired needs,
> i have serveral Terminal servers and a samba pdc,
> in different offices and locations.
> I would warn to make a pseudo religios
> discussion out of that.
> Combine whatever is fitting best to your and the users needs.
> for file services i would preffer samba ever.
> 
>> 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. Centralizing the Terminal Server
>> on a big machine would entail dramatic traffic load on
>> his thin 1/2 T-1 wire, even if he leaves one Samba
>> server on each site for files and printing. So basically
>> he asks: Does it not make more sense to just add file
>> and print services to the MS Windows Terminal Servers ?
>> 
>> And the answer is: Of course, it doesnt!
>> You don't wanna be on the wrong side of the Force, 
>> do you, Chris?
>> 
>> The way I see it, Chris should put his w2k3 in a
>> vmware sandbox on his quad opteron samba server,
>> ideally. Then install some NX magic and live
>> happily ever after, with one central Samba server,
>> (+ stand-by) subleting a couple of w2k3 avatars 
>> under vmware. Or vice versa.
>> 
>> Let the Force be with you,
>> Yoda
>> 
>> 
>>>sorry but i am not clear what is your Question?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Not thinking about migrating back due to issues, 
>>>>it is more due to implementation needs and a little 
>>>>situation I have been wrestling with for a bit now, 
>>>>and would love some feedback
>>>>
>>>>First a little history:
>>>>
>>>>We currently have 10 locations connected via a 
>>>>dedicated 1/2 T-1. Last year I migrated from a 
>>>>WINNT domain to a Samba/LDAP domain. It has been 
>>>>running great. Basically did this for license 
>>>>reasons as well as reduced administrative horror.
>>>>
>>>>NOW:
>>>>
>>>>We have just started to roll out Thinstation 
>>>>thin-clients  that are connecting to Win TSRV servers.  
>>>>What is being planned is 1 Terminal Server per location.  
>>>>This will significantly reduce the adminstrative
>>>>nightmare on multiple Windows boxes and centralize it.
>>>>However, this is where I start to feel that I am having 
>>>>too many servers per location, seeing that the windows 
>>>>server could do what the Samba server is doing, 
>>>>I am in debate about moving back to windows 
>>>>(I have will need to licenses and boxes there anyhows)
>>>>
>>>>One other option is just ot house a ginormous WIN-TSRV 
>>>>at the central location. However, I am afraid of issues 
>>>>with printing back to the remote locations 
>>>>(pushing large files through the 1/2 T-1 to print).
>>>>
>>>>A Another option is to remove the samba servers from the 
>>>>remote location, and just have a samba PDC with 
>>>>authenticating windows tsrv machines. - I dont like this 
>>>>option for some reason 
>>>>
>>>>I really dont want to move away from the SAMBA backend, 
>>>>but at the same time dont want to stay with it just because 
>>>>I 'like it' and I 'want to'. So I am looking for
>>>>discussion/arguements as to why I should stay with the 
>>>>Samba server and a win-tsrv server, as opposed to
>>>>just moving to a MS backend.
>>>>
>>>>Please Obi-won Kenobi, you are our only help! thanks

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:34:24 +0100, Simon Hobson
<shobson-lists@colony.com> 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
> 
> --