Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Windows Networking, help me understand.
Vurbal:
Hmmm...one minor complication...I need a Windows Server flavored OS to create a domain. So I need to make a new machine? Or run one on a VM?
-superboyac (October 15, 2013, 08:59 PM)
--- End quote ---
Well it you're just testing a VM is never (okay rarely) a bad idea.
Something else worth thinking about, assuming you're not planning to run any software or services that plugin to Active Directory anyway, is skipping the Windows domain and going with some type of Linux server and OpenLDAP. Active Directory is (mostly) just the Microsoft implementation of LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) although it is admittedly the simplest in terms of just plugging things in (users, computers, email software, etc,...) and just having them work with little or no effort.
If you really wanted to you could even setup an OpenLDAP server on Windows though there aren't many situations where that makes a lot of sense if you're installing it to a machine running Windows Server. Regardless of how much I badmouth MS and Windows, if not for some particulars of my network like the antique server (dual PIII 900MHz) and a home version of Windows on my primary desktop I'd use my copy of Server 2003 SBS to setup an AD domain without any hesitation.
Stoic Joker:
Hmmm...one minor complication...I need a Windows Server flavored OS to create a domain. So I need to make a new machine? Or run one on a VM?-superboyac (October 15, 2013, 08:59 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yes and no. The Hyper-V host machine should never be a member of the domain it's hosting. This is because it should be a dedicated (to Hyper-V hosting) box (e.g. no AD), and therefore it can't login and authenticate to a domain controller that isn't running yet. So you either run the Hyper-V server(s) in a workgroup, or (if you need to use high-end stuff like Live Migration) in a separate domain.
I currently have 3 physical servers in the rack at the office. The two Hyper-V servers are in a completely separate domain from the production systems, and authenticate to a DC that runs as a VM on the third server which is basically an orphan. The production systems consist of 20 virtual servers for load balancing and redundancy and are spread across the two physical servers.
Having the DC start first is easy enough if the usual trifecta (AD, DNS, DHCP) is the only thing running on the VM, and the other systems are set to wait a minute or two before booting.
Your desire for ultra flexible drive usage may complicate this a bit as added/removed drives would need to sort out which system (physical/virtual/both) they were going to be accessible to.
Or run two DCs, one physical on cheapo hardware to allow the main host system (and guests) to boot cleanly, and one virtual to keep the domain intact in case the budget physical box decides to grenade some day down the road.
Warning: Virtualization is highly addictive!!
Vurbal:
Hmmm...one minor complication...I need a Windows Server flavored OS to create a domain. So I need to make a new machine? Or run one on a VM?-superboyac (October 15, 2013, 08:59 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yes and no. The Hyper-V host machine should never be a member of the domain it's hosting. This is because it should be a dedicated (to Hyper-V hosting) box (e.g. no AD), and therefore it can't login and authenticate to a domain controller that isn't running yet. So you either run the Hyper-V server(s) in a workgroup, or (if you need to use high-end stuff like Live Migration) in a separate domain.
I currently have 3 physical servers in the rack at the office. The two Hyper-V servers are in a completely separate domain from the production systems, and authenticate to a DC that runs as a VM on the third server which is basically an orphan. The production systems consist of 20 virtual servers for load balancing and redundancy and are spread across the two physical servers.
Having the DC start first is easy enough if the usual trifecta (AD, DNS, DHCP) is the only thing running on the VM, and the other systems are set to wait a minute or two before booting.
Your desire for ultra flexible drive usage may complicate this a bit as added/removed drives would need to sort out which system (physical/virtual/both) they were going to be accessible to.
Or run two DCs, one physical on cheapo hardware to allow the main host system (and guests) to boot cleanly, and one virtual to keep the domain intact in case the budget physical box decides to grenade some day down the road.
Warning: Virtualization is highly addictive!!
-Stoic Joker (October 15, 2013, 11:14 PM)
--- End quote ---
I highly recommend the 2 DC setup whenever possible. If a Windows workstation can't reach it's domain controller at the wrong time it can cause all kinds of headaches.
Also I'll second the addictiveness of VMs. As long as you have the horsepower to run them they can simplify so many things. The more functions you're serving from a single server box, the more they simplify your life - but only after all the time you spend experimenting with them.
x16wda:
Or run two DCs, one physical on cheapo hardware
-Stoic Joker (October 15, 2013, 11:14 PM)
--- End quote ---
+1 on that... a DC by itself isn't that heavy a hitter, an old desktop machine should handle it fine in most cases. Just don't put other stuff on the DC (which I always recommend against anyway) and it's quick to spin up a replacement if you need it.
40hz:
^Indeed.
Even a 900mhz relic will work just fine for a DC if that's all it's for. With the advent of 64-bit only for WS that's probably not a real option anymore. But suffice to say a fairly low-end machine is all you really need for DC in a small network.
Since the HD is the most likely point of failure, keeping a fairly up to date image handy on an external drive makes replacing said HD an absolute half-hour breeze job.
(Note: I'm primarily talking home or really small SOHO use here. Biz or bigger - go the VM route as discussed above.)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version