Is there a need for this?

[Brandon Arnold]

Hi, I'm an entry level "admin" for a network in my office. Previously
I was a systems admin for a small business and maintained a mixed
Mac/XP setup with a server 2003 machine setup for file sharing and an
internal testing site for the web devs.

Now I'm thrown into an office with a previously configured SBS and
I've noticed on all my workstations, all XP Pro, they're set to
connect to the server which is setup for AD. As best I can tell, it's
completely useless. Everyone logs onto the server but works locally.
The only reason I can see that the server is even in the building is
to host files that everyone accesses and to run an SQL database for an
app we have. Past that I can't see a reason for the AD setup. Just
to see I disconnected a rarely used machine to see if there were any
adverse effects and nothing has come up in about 2 or 3 months. I
have noticed that the machines that are setup to connect to the server
spawn off alot of dnsapi, mrxsmb, lsasrv and win32time errors in the
eventlog. After disconnecting the one machine, those stopped, which
isn't really all that surprising since all the errors whined and
moaned about the problems coming from the domain. I assume it's not
setup right, in addition to having this network configured wrong.

If there is no real reason to have it setup like this, what effects
could I expect when I disconnect the machines? I assume I'll have to
deal with "why's my desktop look different know?" since there are no
local accounts on the machines aside from the admin accounts. I'm
just afraid that I'll have to deal with a host of issues ranging from
the simple account creation to things that are out of the scope of my
knowledge right now.

Thanks in advance for any insight into this issue.

 

[WorkingHard]

Well,

It certainly has it uses

Active Directory (Centrally managed resources using GPO's)
Exchange (Mail server)
Remote Acces (RDP)
WSUS (Patch management)
and with the enterprise edition:
SQL (database)
ISA Server (firewall)

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/techinfo/productdoc/default.mspx

Please read up on it here. For more documentation about the benefits of a
centrally manged network versus a peer to peer network Google on that
subject.

I think you're missing the point of a managed environment in terms of
efficiency, easy of use and cost savings. What SBS 2003 has to offer for
it's price is next to none. There are loads of good SBS resources out there
like:

http://www.sbslinks.com/
http://www.smallbizserver.net/
http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/Default.aspx
http://msmvps.com/blogs/sbsfaq/archive/category/747.aspx

Have fun, good luck and Cheers


"Brandon Arnold" <informationmoves@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec3n93d5lpsje5ghefugcm885c999niii4@4ax.com...
> Hi, I'm an entry level "admin" for a network in my office. Previously
> I was a systems admin for a small business and maintained a mixed
> Mac/XP setup with a server 2003 machine setup for file sharing and an
> internal testing site for the web devs.
>
> Now I'm thrown into an office with a previously configured SBS and
> I've noticed on all my workstations, all XP Pro, they're set to
> connect to the server which is setup for AD. As best I can tell, it's
> completely useless. Everyone logs onto the server but works locally.
> The only reason I can see that the server is even in the building is
> to host files that everyone accesses and to run an SQL database for an
> app we have. Past that I can't see a reason for the AD setup. Just
> to see I disconnected a rarely used machine to see if there were any
> adverse effects and nothing has come up in about 2 or 3 months. I
> have noticed that the machines that are setup to connect to the server
> spawn off alot of dnsapi, mrxsmb, lsasrv and win32time errors in the
> eventlog. After disconnecting the one machine, those stopped, which
> isn't really all that surprising since all the errors whined and
> moaned about the problems coming from the domain. I assume it's not
> setup right, in addition to having this network configured wrong.
>
> If there is no real reason to have it setup like this, what effects
> could I expect when I disconnect the machines? I assume I'll have to
> deal with "why's my desktop look different know?" since there are no
> local accounts on the machines aside from the admin accounts. I'm
> just afraid that I'll have to deal with a host of issues ranging from
> the simple account creation to things that are out of the scope of my
> knowledge right now.
>
> Thanks in advance for any insight into this issue.

 

[Brandon Arnold]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:07:25 +0200, "WorkingHard"
<workinghard@news.postalias> wrote:

>Well,
>
>It certainly has it uses
>
>Active Directory (Centrally managed resources using GPO's)
>Exchange (Mail server)
>Remote Acces (RDP)
>WSUS (Patch management)
>and with the enterprise edition:
>SQL (database)
>ISA Server (firewall)
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/techinfo/productdoc/default.mspx
>
>Please read up on it here. For more documentation about the benefits of a
>centrally manged network versus a peer to peer network Google on that
>subject.
>
>I think you're missing the point of a managed environment in terms of
>efficiency, easy of use and cost savings. What SBS 2003 has to offer for
>it's price is next to none. There are loads of good SBS resources out there
>like:
>
>http://www.sbslinks.com/
>http://www.smallbizserver.net/
>http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/Default.aspx
>http://msmvps.com/blogs/sbsfaq/archive/category/747.aspx
>
>Have fun, good luck and Cheers

Well, I know the basic benifits of AD and a central admin point, but
what i'm missing is why it's needed in my office. Like I said the
only real use i'm seeing for it right now is a database. The entire
network is a mess. There's an excessive use of switches and routers
for a 5 machine network, the machines are underpowered and cluttered,
the wiring is attrocious and other things are "off". WSUS isn't
setup, the server itself isn't even up to date. From the looks of it,
it hasn't been updated in upwards of a year, and now i'm afraid to
update for fear of applying an update that could break something
critical. All remote access and security for in and outbound traffic
is manged by a router/firewall.

One other thing I noticed is that the server is also setup for DNS
resolution and is set to be a gateway but the workstations use the
info being pulled from the router, not the server. Is that strange or
am I missing something?

I can definitly see the benifits of a server in the right environment
but I don't think this is office is it. Again, the only thing I see
it being used for is SQL.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

 

[SBS Rocker]

My question would be why would they be logging on to the server (which I
presume is the SBS server) if they are all working locally? What is your
definition of locally and if it is the local machine and just ask them to
log onto the local machine and not the domain. Why would you want to use the
SBS server?


"Brandon Arnold" <informationmoves@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec3n93d5lpsje5ghefugcm885c999niii4@4ax.com...
> Hi, I'm an entry level "admin" for a network in my office. Previously
> I was a systems admin for a small business and maintained a mixed
> Mac/XP setup with a server 2003 machine setup for file sharing and an
> internal testing site for the web devs.
>
> Now I'm thrown into an office with a previously configured SBS and
> I've noticed on all my workstations, all XP Pro, they're set to
> connect to the server which is setup for AD. As best I can tell, it's
> completely useless. Everyone logs onto the server but works locally.
> The only reason I can see that the server is even in the building is
> to host files that everyone accesses and to run an SQL database for an
> app we have. Past that I can't see a reason for the AD setup. Just
> to see I disconnected a rarely used machine to see if there were any
> adverse effects and nothing has come up in about 2 or 3 months. I
> have noticed that the machines that are setup to connect to the server
> spawn off alot of dnsapi, mrxsmb, lsasrv and win32time errors in the
> eventlog. After disconnecting the one machine, those stopped, which
> isn't really all that surprising since all the errors whined and
> moaned about the problems coming from the domain. I assume it's not
> setup right, in addition to having this network configured wrong.
>
> If there is no real reason to have it setup like this, what effects
> could I expect when I disconnect the machines? I assume I'll have to
> deal with "why's my desktop look different know?" since there are no
> local accounts on the machines aside from the admin accounts. I'm
> just afraid that I'll have to deal with a host of issues ranging from
> the simple account creation to things that are out of the scope of my
> knowledge right now.
>
> Thanks in advance for any insight into this issue.

 

[Brandon Arnold]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:24:17 -0700, "SBS Rocker"
<noreply@NoDomain.com> wrote:

>My question would be why would they be logging on to the server (which I
>presume is the SBS server) if they are all working locally? What is your
>definition of locally and if it is the local machine and just ask them to
>log onto the local machine and not the domain. Why would you want to use the
>SBS server?
>
>
>"Brandon Arnold" <informationmoves@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ec3n93d5lpsje5ghefugcm885c999niii4@4ax.com...
>> Hi, I'm an entry level "admin" for a network in my office. Previously
>> I was a systems admin for a small business and maintained a mixed
>> Mac/XP setup with a server 2003 machine setup for file sharing and an
>> internal testing site for the web devs.
>>
>> Now I'm thrown into an office with a previously configured SBS and
>> I've noticed on all my workstations, all XP Pro, they're set to
>> connect to the server which is setup for AD. As best I can tell, it's
>> completely useless. Everyone logs onto the server but works locally.
>> The only reason I can see that the server is even in the building is
>> to host files that everyone accesses and to run an SQL database for an
>> app we have. Past that I can't see a reason for the AD setup. Just
>> to see I disconnected a rarely used machine to see if there were any
>> adverse effects and nothing has come up in about 2 or 3 months. I
>> have noticed that the machines that are setup to connect to the server
>> spawn off alot of dnsapi, mrxsmb, lsasrv and win32time errors in the
>> eventlog. After disconnecting the one machine, those stopped, which
>> isn't really all that surprising since all the errors whined and
>> moaned about the problems coming from the domain. I assume it's not
>> setup right, in addition to having this network configured wrong.
>>
>> If there is no real reason to have it setup like this, what effects
>> could I expect when I disconnect the machines? I assume I'll have to
>> deal with "why's my desktop look different know?" since there are no
>> local accounts on the machines aside from the admin accounts. I'm
>> just afraid that I'll have to deal with a host of issues ranging from
>> the simple account creation to things that are out of the scope of my
>> knowledge right now.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any insight into this issue.
>

That's what i'm asking. Everything was already setup like this when I
got here so know that I didn't have a hand in setting this up, i'm
just trying to fix it.

Yes, it's SBS. When I say locally, I mean locally. All their apps
are installed locally, all their working files are local. They log
into accounts that are on the server. They access working files for
one program on the server, and another program that has an SQL db on
the server is used. Other than that, I don't see the use in having it
around much less having everyone setup to logon to that server.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

 

[WorkingHard]

Hello again. That network is a mess indeed. The DNS of the clients MUST be
fixed asap cause it just will not work properly when they don't use the AD
DNS. Basically by the sounds of it it has been thrown together in a very bad
way but that is NOT the technologies fault. Thechnology requieres knowledge
to be setup properly and must be stet up to serve a business need. If you
have 5 + user yes they will benefit greatly from an SBS server environment
if it is set up correctly and used for business needs like:

Central Directory for management (all the good stuff in AD via GPO's)
e-mail
File & print serving + centralized backups
WSUS
SQL
etc ..

But if they just wanna surf and dont' even care about centralized file
serving and backups ... well yes why would one even bother then. For the
price of an SBS box you get a lot of tools and possibilities for a well
managed SMB network. If they don't need it or they can not grasp the
benefits ... try again. But it seems to me you don't see the need for that
either? Why is that. what is their business need? How many users? What type
of apps and documents ... It's very hard to say if they can and will benefit
if all we know that now the network is a mess. Basically all but the
smallest businesses who work with computer apps can benefit from a decent
setup. Just think about what a 5 people costs in wages alone in 4 years
time. Now give them an SBS environment that is professionally set up and
managed instead of the "mess" you describe ... After proper configuration it
can be mostely manged remotely and doesn't require a full time sysadmin. SBS
was made for such small evironments.

Get on the SBS newsgroup. Great folks around that place ...

If you're in the USA:

http://www.sbits.biz/
http://www.harborcomputerservices.net/
http://www.smallbizserver.net
http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/

They might be able to help you find good SBS professional support in your
area if you need it.

Cheers

 

[Leythos]

In article <ec3n93d5lpsje5ghefugcm885c999niii4@4ax.com>,
informationmoves@gmail.com says...
> Thanks in advance for any insight into this issue.

Central management, security, users files, redirected My Documents,
roaming profiles, BACKUPS, more security, etc....


--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

[Leythos]

In article <oubn93tg2u3g5ghn1f6fo29uprhpln7s3b@4ax.com>,
informationmoves@gmail.com says...
> Well, I know the basic benifits of AD and a central admin point, but
> what i'm missing is why it's needed in my office. Like I said the
> only real use i'm seeing for it right now is a database. The entire
> network is a mess. There's an excessive use of switches and routers
> for a 5 machine network, the machines are underpowered and cluttered,
> the wiring is attrocious and other things are "off". WSUS isn't
> setup, the server itself isn't even up to date. From the looks of it,
> it hasn't been updated in upwards of a year, and now i'm afraid to
> update for fear of applying an update that could break something
> critical. All remote access and security for in and outbound traffic
> is manged by a router/firewall.

So, fix SBS and then fix the hardware issues, one has nothing to do with
the other.

The reason for the AD environment is management, security, central
consolidation of files/resources, easy recover in the event of a
failure, sharing of resources, etc... Just because your physical network
is a mess doesn't mean you don't need SBS/AD and doesn't mean that SBS
is the reason.

"The machines are underpowered" has nothing to do with SBS/AD.

"Excessive use of routers/switches" has nothing to do with SBS/AD.

Do a backup and then update the server, it's that simple.

And since you need SQL, SBS is the Cheapest option out there for a MS
SQL Server.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

[Leythos]

In article <v0fn935tp63983gpd7cofqhmbg2ee4ca6f@4ax.com>,
informationmoves@gmail.com says...
> Other than that, I don't see the use in having it
> around much less having everyone setup to logon to that server.

We've got clients with as few as 3 users (workstations) running on a SBS
network because of the security, management, ability to recover,
backups, central storage, sharing of email information, company web, and
the wizards that give them a clue about the backup working or not.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

[Brandon Arnold]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:28:04 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <ec3n93d5lpsje5ghefugcm885c999niii4@4ax.com>,
>informationmoves@gmail.com says...
>> Thanks in advance for any insight into this issue.
>
>Central management, security, users files, redirected My Documents,
>roaming profiles, BACKUPS, more security, etc....

From the sounds of it i've totally missed the point of SBS. I didn't
feel it was really necessary but if you guys say it is, then i'll take
another look. But what I DO know, is that the network itself is a
total mess and is in need of a cleanup.

Workhard, thanks for the links, i'll hit those places up and see what
they have to offer. I know my way around servers, but the more
"advanced" features escape me right now.

I'll take another look and thanks again.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

 

[Brandon Arnold]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:31:49 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <oubn93tg2u3g5ghn1f6fo29uprhpln7s3b@4ax.com>,
>informationmoves@gmail.com says...
>> Well, I know the basic benifits of AD and a central admin point, but
>> what i'm missing is why it's needed in my office. Like I said the
>> only real use i'm seeing for it right now is a database. The entire
>> network is a mess. There's an excessive use of switches and routers
>> for a 5 machine network, the machines are underpowered and cluttered,
>> the wiring is attrocious and other things are "off". WSUS isn't
>> setup, the server itself isn't even up to date. From the looks of it,
>> it hasn't been updated in upwards of a year, and now i'm afraid to
>> update for fear of applying an update that could break something
>> critical. All remote access and security for in and outbound traffic
>> is manged by a router/firewall.
>
>So, fix SBS and then fix the hardware issues, one has nothing to do with
>the other.
>
>The reason for the AD environment is management, security, central
>consolidation of files/resources, easy recover in the event of a
>failure, sharing of resources, etc... Just because your physical network
>is a mess doesn't mean you don't need SBS/AD and doesn't mean that SBS
>is the reason.
>
>"The machines are underpowered" has nothing to do with SBS/AD.
>
>"Excessive use of routers/switches" has nothing to do with SBS/AD.
>
>Do a backup and then update the server, it's that simple.
>
>And since you need SQL, SBS is the Cheapest option out there for a MS
>SQL Server.

I know the hardware issues have nothing to do with the rest of the
server setup, I was just giving an example of the other things that
weren't right in my network, thinking that was included. Having a
server I totally agree with, but having the users connect to the
server I didn't see the point in, it just seemed unnecessary and was
causing more problems than solving(all my eventviewer errors).

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

 

[Leythos]

In article <1min93hrpikvj3vbhc4dttlhtrh6ovdp61@4ax.com>,
informationmoves@gmail.com says...
> Having a
> server I totally agree with, but having the users connect to the
> server I didn't see the point in, it just seemed unnecessary and was
> causing more problems than solving(all my eventviewer errors).

The cost of Windows 2003 Standard is more than the cost of SBS 2003, if
you consider SQL 2000 or 2005, SBS is even more of a deal since the cost
of SBS Premium is cheaper than Win 2003 Std and SQL combined.

With a real server setup, with roaming profiles, with a determination
that users will store all things on the server, it really does make life
a LOT easier when there is a failure of a workstation - they almost
never notice that the new machine is different.

SBS also offers them the ability to RWW into their workstation remotely,
something that Win 2003 Std doesn't have.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

[Ryan Hanisco]

Brandon,

You are right that you have inherited a total mess. You do have some work
to do. You are basically in a situation where you've given an electron
microsope to cavemen -- there is no shock that its broken.

The point is that it is a powerful and useful tool. You just have the
hurdle of fixing it and maintaining it. This will save you a ton of work in
the long run.
--
Ryan Hanisco
MCSE, MCTS: SQL 2005, Project+
Chicago, IL

Remember: Marking helpful answers helps everyone find the info they need
quickly.


"Brandon Arnold" wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:28:04 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
> >In article <ec3n93d5lpsje5ghefugcm885c999niii4@4ax.com>,
> >informationmoves@gmail.com says...
> >> Thanks in advance for any insight into this issue.
> >
> >Central management, security, users files, redirected My Documents,
> >roaming profiles, BACKUPS, more security, etc....
>
> From the sounds of it i've totally missed the point of SBS. I didn't
> feel it was really necessary but if you guys say it is, then i'll take
> another look. But what I DO know, is that the network itself is a
> total mess and is in need of a cleanup.
>
> Workhard, thanks for the links, i'll hit those places up and see what
> they have to offer. I know my way around servers, but the more
> "advanced" features escape me right now.
>
> I'll take another look and thanks again.
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com
>