Follow the Australian Telecommunications scene NEWSLETTER- FREE TRIAL
 | |
|
Technology news and Jobs 
The Linux distillery The real reason consultants use Microsoft SBS over Linux
The Linux distillery The real reason consultants use Microsoft SBS over Linux | The real reason consultants use Microsoft SBS over Linux |
|
| by David M Williams | |
| Saturday, 13 September 2008 | |
|
Page 2 of 4 User limitation isn’t the only constraint in SBS. You’re also restricted to having just one SBS server in your network (well, until EBS.) If you want more servers you have to pay the full price for a Windows Server 2003 license.Featured Whitepaper
5 Best Practices for Smartphone Support
So what do you do? Well, firstly, if you have the domain, mail and file server in one office, and let the second office’s users drag files over the wide area network (WAN) connection you’ll just frustrate them. They’ll experience lag. A popular option is terminal services. If you have a second office you could opt to go this route. This means the first office – where the server is housed – run their desktop computers as normal. The second office use remote desktop protocol (RDP) clients to effectively log in to a session on the server in the first office. They get all the benefits as if they were on the local network in the first office because that’s where they really are opening and saving files. All that goes over the wide area connection are keystrokes, mouse movements and screen refreshes. Oh crap, that’s right; SBS doesn’t let you run terminal services. You need a second server if you want to use terminal services. And it must be a Windows Server product at the regular price, not the SBS price. Oh yes, and you will need to buy new terminal server client access licenses (CAL) too. Thanks for nothing, SBS. Let’s start again. Perhaps you could place a second server at the new office. This server would give local file and print serving. Your users can even authenticate it. Ok, time for an admission. I said last time SBS won’t allow another server to be a domain controller. I said you were restricted to just one domain controller. In a second branch scenario like the one we’re discussing here all user authentication would have to go over the WAN even if you had a local server. This was wrong. You can, in fact, have additional domain controllers. The local branch server could become a domain controller and then the second office folk can login against it. I do appreciate the legion of SBS consultants who pointed this out to me, and I do consider myself corrected. It’s no defence but at least I’m not alone; most expressed “when will this chestnut die” so it’s an oft-repeated myth. Still, even though I am corrected I don’t consider myself defeated. I was corrected on one point alone. Yes, an SBS network will permit additional domain controllers. However, not one person said I was wrong that SBS limited the number of users, it limited the number of SBS servers, and it did not lend itself to participating in larger, multi-domain, networks because it does not permit trust relationships and more. In fact, even though SBS does allow more than one domain controller there is one particularly fatal flaw which becomes a true problem in such a multi-office scenario as I’m describing. And I’m still to tell you the real reason consultants recommend SBS. CONTINUED
|
| < Next story in category | Previous story in the category > |
|---|
