Building a network
-
Hi CPians, I want to build a network for a big company (just for my project. not a real network :) ) and need some web pages about this. Does anybody know any web pages about this issue? The network could be either wireless or wired. Thanks for any helps in advance. Mustafa Demirhan http://www.macroangel.com Sonork ID 100.9935:zoltrix
-
Hi CPians, I want to build a network for a big company (just for my project. not a real network :) ) and need some web pages about this. Does anybody know any web pages about this issue? The network could be either wireless or wired. Thanks for any helps in advance. Mustafa Demirhan http://www.macroangel.com Sonork ID 100.9935:zoltrix
There are a lot of sites out there to help you. Three that I would check first are CNET , ZDNet, and Microsoft Technet. It's not a simple subject, though, so expect to spend many, many hours studying before you sit down to design anything credible. I've spent hundreds of hours, and read about a dozen texts on the subject, and still I have a clear understanding of what I'm doing only about half the time. The trouble for me is that, once I think I fully understand something and try to set it up, the instructions from the manufacturer do something entirely different than expected or claimed. Micro$oft is particularly bad about that - they provide detailed instructions for almost anything you can imagine, all of which are entirely wrong, or at best, incomplete. Good luck!
-
There are a lot of sites out there to help you. Three that I would check first are CNET , ZDNet, and Microsoft Technet. It's not a simple subject, though, so expect to spend many, many hours studying before you sit down to design anything credible. I've spent hundreds of hours, and read about a dozen texts on the subject, and still I have a clear understanding of what I'm doing only about half the time. The trouble for me is that, once I think I fully understand something and try to set it up, the instructions from the manufacturer do something entirely different than expected or claimed. Micro$oft is particularly bad about that - they provide detailed instructions for almost anything you can imagine, all of which are entirely wrong, or at best, incomplete. Good luck!
I agree. I've set up a bunch of networks, but even with instructions it still many times comes down to hours of trial and error. Josh Knox that-guy.net
"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes." - author unknown -
There are a lot of sites out there to help you. Three that I would check first are CNET , ZDNet, and Microsoft Technet. It's not a simple subject, though, so expect to spend many, many hours studying before you sit down to design anything credible. I've spent hundreds of hours, and read about a dozen texts on the subject, and still I have a clear understanding of what I'm doing only about half the time. The trouble for me is that, once I think I fully understand something and try to set it up, the instructions from the manufacturer do something entirely different than expected or claimed. Micro$oft is particularly bad about that - they provide detailed instructions for almost anything you can imagine, all of which are entirely wrong, or at best, incomplete. Good luck!
-
There are a lot of sites out there to help you. Three that I would check first are CNET , ZDNet, and Microsoft Technet. It's not a simple subject, though, so expect to spend many, many hours studying before you sit down to design anything credible. I've spent hundreds of hours, and read about a dozen texts on the subject, and still I have a clear understanding of what I'm doing only about half the time. The trouble for me is that, once I think I fully understand something and try to set it up, the instructions from the manufacturer do something entirely different than expected or claimed. Micro$oft is particularly bad about that - they provide detailed instructions for almost anything you can imagine, all of which are entirely wrong, or at best, incomplete. Good luck!
Thanks Roger. Mustafa Demirhan http://www.macroangel.com Sonork ID 100.9935:zoltrix
-
What are the major problems that you guys have faced setting up networks? Were the problems specific to applications or related to the basic connectivity/performance etc.? Thomas
Thomas George wrote: problems specific to applications or related to the basic connectivity/performance etc.? Most of the problems I've encountered have been with services - Exchange, Proxy Server, RRAS - none work correctly, or as advertised. Of course, not knowing better at the time, I recommended the Small Business Server package for my small company, not knowing what a piece of crap it is. I've given up trying to fix the junk after 4 years of following incorrect Microsoft instructions and applying fixes that don't work. As soon as I can get budget authorization, I'm dumping it for a straight Win2K Server and eliminating all the useless garbage that comes with SBS. Win2K may not be any better - I can't understand anything about the DNS, DHCP, Terminal Services or any of the other bells and whistles that come with it, but at least it's stable. The documentation, as always, is useless, assuming that everyone has worked at Microsoft for 30 years and is privvy to all the internal workings, but I can make it limp along adequately.
-
Thomas George wrote: problems specific to applications or related to the basic connectivity/performance etc.? Most of the problems I've encountered have been with services - Exchange, Proxy Server, RRAS - none work correctly, or as advertised. Of course, not knowing better at the time, I recommended the Small Business Server package for my small company, not knowing what a piece of crap it is. I've given up trying to fix the junk after 4 years of following incorrect Microsoft instructions and applying fixes that don't work. As soon as I can get budget authorization, I'm dumping it for a straight Win2K Server and eliminating all the useless garbage that comes with SBS. Win2K may not be any better - I can't understand anything about the DNS, DHCP, Terminal Services or any of the other bells and whistles that come with it, but at least it's stable. The documentation, as always, is useless, assuming that everyone has worked at Microsoft for 30 years and is privvy to all the internal workings, but I can make it limp along adequately.
Why is Exchange Server preferred over, say as Linux/SendMail/FetchMail combination? I have seen that in almost all Linux distributions, these get installed automatically and all the administrator has to do is add users. Are there any specific reasons, considering the large difference in pricing with the Windows 2000 Server + Exchange Server costs. Ofcourse a case could be made regarding the ease of configuration, when more complex things have to be accomplished. Qmail is also very popular now. I have given up trying to convince people around here about the savings, if they go in for a Linux based mailserver. They are just not comfortable with it. DHCP is very good though. It automatically assigns IP addresses to workstations from a pool. Considering that all Windows machines have a default configuration of 'Obtain an IP address automatically', this works great. The administrator does not have to keep tabs on the IP addresses already assigned. If you have to assign permenant IP addresses, you can do that based on the network adaptor's MAC address in the DHCP console. We used it here and it works wonderfully well. Setting up a local cacheing DNS on the Win2K server may also be good. For every web page requested, there is a DNS lookup. So, if you just go along the wizard to set it up, all DNS requests will be handled by this server, making browsing faster. As a fail-safe measure, you can configure the secondary DNS with your Internet service provider's DNS server. Recently, I saw some documentation on SBS, which basically said that it was the product that Microsoft had most compatibility problems with. I do not remember the specifics, but I certainly believe that you will be better off with a Win2K Server than an SBS. Thomas George
-
Why is Exchange Server preferred over, say as Linux/SendMail/FetchMail combination? I have seen that in almost all Linux distributions, these get installed automatically and all the administrator has to do is add users. Are there any specific reasons, considering the large difference in pricing with the Windows 2000 Server + Exchange Server costs. Ofcourse a case could be made regarding the ease of configuration, when more complex things have to be accomplished. Qmail is also very popular now. I have given up trying to convince people around here about the savings, if they go in for a Linux based mailserver. They are just not comfortable with it. DHCP is very good though. It automatically assigns IP addresses to workstations from a pool. Considering that all Windows machines have a default configuration of 'Obtain an IP address automatically', this works great. The administrator does not have to keep tabs on the IP addresses already assigned. If you have to assign permenant IP addresses, you can do that based on the network adaptor's MAC address in the DHCP console. We used it here and it works wonderfully well. Setting up a local cacheing DNS on the Win2K server may also be good. For every web page requested, there is a DNS lookup. So, if you just go along the wizard to set it up, all DNS requests will be handled by this server, making browsing faster. As a fail-safe measure, you can configure the secondary DNS with your Internet service provider's DNS server. Recently, I saw some documentation on SBS, which basically said that it was the product that Microsoft had most compatibility problems with. I do not remember the specifics, but I certainly believe that you will be better off with a Win2K Server than an SBS. Thomas George
Thomas George wrote: Recently, I saw some documentation on SBS, which basically said that it was the product that Microsoft had most compatibility problems with. I do not remember the specifics, but I certainly believe that you will be better off with a Win2K Server than an SBS. Essentially, everything must be managed using the System Console, which bears no resemblance to MMC. The standard tools and techniques documented for WinNT do not work. But every time something changes, a new service, removal of an app, the Console no longer works. The instructions published to restore it sometimes work, more often not. I think you're right - Win2K is going to be a lot less headache! Thomas George wrote: DHCP is very good though I agree, but it is no longer possible to use it. Because of some decisions made by the bosses, I now have 6 users that have to be connected to a specialized box that insists on being the DHCP server for the subnet, and the SBS DHCP shuts down every time it detects another DHCP server - a "feature" built in to SBS, I believe. So now all of my other clients will have to be manually configured :(( Proxy Server continues to be completely indecipherable - the docs suck, full of meaningless buzzwords, and no useful information. It's a wonder to me that anyone on the LAN can view a web page at all. And RRAS is a total nightmare, shutting down IIS every time I allow it to start, so there's been no way to connect three remote PCs to the network. On the other hand, my Win2K PC at home is relatively easy to manage - I'm looking forward to the change. And while I'm at it, I plan to host the whole thing on a new server box, and abandon the old to file server duty... Maybe the world's most expensive low-capacity NAS:laugh: It has not been a fun 4 years!
-
Thomas George wrote: Recently, I saw some documentation on SBS, which basically said that it was the product that Microsoft had most compatibility problems with. I do not remember the specifics, but I certainly believe that you will be better off with a Win2K Server than an SBS. Essentially, everything must be managed using the System Console, which bears no resemblance to MMC. The standard tools and techniques documented for WinNT do not work. But every time something changes, a new service, removal of an app, the Console no longer works. The instructions published to restore it sometimes work, more often not. I think you're right - Win2K is going to be a lot less headache! Thomas George wrote: DHCP is very good though I agree, but it is no longer possible to use it. Because of some decisions made by the bosses, I now have 6 users that have to be connected to a specialized box that insists on being the DHCP server for the subnet, and the SBS DHCP shuts down every time it detects another DHCP server - a "feature" built in to SBS, I believe. So now all of my other clients will have to be manually configured :(( Proxy Server continues to be completely indecipherable - the docs suck, full of meaningless buzzwords, and no useful information. It's a wonder to me that anyone on the LAN can view a web page at all. And RRAS is a total nightmare, shutting down IIS every time I allow it to start, so there's been no way to connect three remote PCs to the network. On the other hand, my Win2K PC at home is relatively easy to manage - I'm looking forward to the change. And while I'm at it, I plan to host the whole thing on a new server box, and abandon the old to file server duty... Maybe the world's most expensive low-capacity NAS:laugh: It has not been a fun 4 years!
As for the proxy server, why don't you switch to a simple NAT software and a firewall software? NAT is now already part of Win2k. I found this article in Microsoft for configuring NAT on Windows 2000. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q310357 So, what you will need to replace the MS Proxy will be just a firewall software like the one you get from Symantec. It is very bad that you cannot use DHCP. Probably, at the server itself, you can add another network card and split it off to another physical network. It may be well worth it, especially if you have many workstations around. Wish you good luck with the switch. Something invariably goes wrong with even the most seemingly straightforward upgrades. Thomas George
-
Thomas George wrote: Recently, I saw some documentation on SBS, which basically said that it was the product that Microsoft had most compatibility problems with. I do not remember the specifics, but I certainly believe that you will be better off with a Win2K Server than an SBS. Essentially, everything must be managed using the System Console, which bears no resemblance to MMC. The standard tools and techniques documented for WinNT do not work. But every time something changes, a new service, removal of an app, the Console no longer works. The instructions published to restore it sometimes work, more often not. I think you're right - Win2K is going to be a lot less headache! Thomas George wrote: DHCP is very good though I agree, but it is no longer possible to use it. Because of some decisions made by the bosses, I now have 6 users that have to be connected to a specialized box that insists on being the DHCP server for the subnet, and the SBS DHCP shuts down every time it detects another DHCP server - a "feature" built in to SBS, I believe. So now all of my other clients will have to be manually configured :(( Proxy Server continues to be completely indecipherable - the docs suck, full of meaningless buzzwords, and no useful information. It's a wonder to me that anyone on the LAN can view a web page at all. And RRAS is a total nightmare, shutting down IIS every time I allow it to start, so there's been no way to connect three remote PCs to the network. On the other hand, my Win2K PC at home is relatively easy to manage - I'm looking forward to the change. And while I'm at it, I plan to host the whole thing on a new server box, and abandon the old to file server duty... Maybe the world's most expensive low-capacity NAS:laugh: It has not been a fun 4 years!
http://www.greencomputer.com/ Have a look at this also. Might be the exact thing that you are looking for. You can run your IIS on a Win2k machine, if your web applications are Windows specific Thomas
-
As for the proxy server, why don't you switch to a simple NAT software and a firewall software? NAT is now already part of Win2k. I found this article in Microsoft for configuring NAT on Windows 2000. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q310357 So, what you will need to replace the MS Proxy will be just a firewall software like the one you get from Symantec. It is very bad that you cannot use DHCP. Probably, at the server itself, you can add another network card and split it off to another physical network. It may be well worth it, especially if you have many workstations around. Wish you good luck with the switch. Something invariably goes wrong with even the most seemingly straightforward upgrades. Thomas George
Thanks for the tips, Thomas:-D