Guest John F Kappler Posted October 8, 2007 Posted October 8, 2007 We currently are running a Windows SBServer 2003 system which is domain controller, runs Exchange, and also a couple of SQL applications. We did ask this question on the SBS group, but got no replies presumably because it goes beyond SBS! We have 10 local users, plus 5 or so remote (accessing our Intranet or using OWA) We now have a need to allow five or so remote users to run as clients on one of our SQL applications (for data entry). We assume this would best be done by Terminal Services. We're told that SBS does not allow this form of access, and our best solution is to add another box running Windows Server 2003 just for the remote users to access. Is this a reasonable solution and what should we look for in terms of both hardware and Windows Server and license configurations? This is our first venture beyond SBS so all help much appreciated!! TIA, JohnK
Guest Anthony Posted October 8, 2007 Posted October 8, 2007 Re: Our next Server Hi JohnK, Either Terminal Services or VPN would be your solution for remote SQL application. For 5 users, any hardware and W2K3 Standard should be sufficient. You will need to buy TS CALs. Hope that helps, Anthony, http://www.airdesk.co.uk "John F Kappler" <john@pceffect.co.uk> wrote in message news:3qrjg3pch6j4365ulgu4n016s5es8bcocl@4ax.com... > We currently are running a Windows SBServer 2003 system which is > domain controller, runs Exchange, and also a couple of SQL > applications. We did ask this question on the SBS group, but got no > replies presumably because it goes beyond SBS! > > We have 10 local users, plus 5 or so remote (accessing our Intranet or > using OWA) > > We now have a need to allow five or so remote users to run as clients > on one of our SQL applications (for data entry). > > We assume this would best be done by Terminal Services. > > We're told that SBS does not allow this form of access, and our best > solution is to add another box running Windows Server 2003 just for > the remote users to access. > > Is this a reasonable solution and what should we look for in terms of > both hardware and Windows Server and license configurations? > > This is our first venture beyond SBS so all help much appreciated!! > > TIA, > > JohnK > >
Guest Leythos Posted October 8, 2007 Posted October 8, 2007 Re: Our next Server In article <3qrjg3pch6j4365ulgu4n016s5es8bcocl@4ax.com>, john@pceffect.co.uk says... > We currently are running a Windows SBServer 2003 system which is > domain controller, runs Exchange, and also a couple of SQL > applications. We did ask this question on the SBS group, but got no > replies presumably because it goes beyond SBS! > > We have 10 local users, plus 5 or so remote (accessing our Intranet or > using OWA) > > We now have a need to allow five or so remote users to run as clients > on one of our SQL applications (for data entry). > > We assume this would best be done by Terminal Services. > > We're told that SBS does not allow this form of access, and our best > solution is to add another box running Windows Server 2003 just for > the remote users to access. > > Is this a reasonable solution and what should we look for in terms of > both hardware and Windows Server and license configurations? > > This is our first venture beyond SBS so all help much appreciated!! You were told correctly - a Small Server (Single Quad Core or Dual Dual Core CPU's and 3GB RAM, Windows 2003 Standard, Licenses for Terminal Server (user) for each remote person, 2 x Drives for RAID-1..... Since you have very few remote users, that server would do well in most cases (about $2900). Don't consider VPN, if your connection drops, since you appear to want cheap, I'm guessing you don't have a high-end dedicated Business Class connection (and I'm talking that never goes down)... you will end up with dropped transactions at some point and then spend money on support fixing it. Terminal server is the simple way - it also means that you can use the SBS RWW function to allow them to securely connect without needing a VPN or other holes in the firewall. Why not ask the people that spec'd and built your SBS box to quote you a small terminal 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)
Guest John F Kappler Posted October 8, 2007 Posted October 8, 2007 Re: Our next Server Thanks for the replies. Just for the record - I'm the guy who spec'd and built the SBS box! JohnK On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 06:48:52 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote: >In article <3qrjg3pch6j4365ulgu4n016s5es8bcocl@4ax.com>, >john@pceffect.co.uk says... >> We currently are running a Windows SBServer 2003 system which is >> domain controller, runs Exchange, and also a couple of SQL >> applications. We did ask this question on the SBS group, but got no >> replies presumably because it goes beyond SBS! >> >> We have 10 local users, plus 5 or so remote (accessing our Intranet or >> using OWA) >> >> We now have a need to allow five or so remote users to run as clients >> on one of our SQL applications (for data entry). >> >> We assume this would best be done by Terminal Services. >> >> We're told that SBS does not allow this form of access, and our best >> solution is to add another box running Windows Server 2003 just for >> the remote users to access. >> >> Is this a reasonable solution and what should we look for in terms of >> both hardware and Windows Server and license configurations? >> >> This is our first venture beyond SBS so all help much appreciated!! > >You were told correctly - a Small Server (Single Quad Core or Dual Dual >Core CPU's and 3GB RAM, Windows 2003 Standard, Licenses for Terminal >Server (user) for each remote person, 2 x Drives for RAID-1..... > >Since you have very few remote users, that server would do well in most >cases (about $2900). > >Don't consider VPN, if your connection drops, since you appear to want >cheap, I'm guessing you don't have a high-end dedicated Business Class >connection (and I'm talking that never goes down)... you will end up >with dropped transactions at some point and then spend money on support >fixing it. > >Terminal server is the simple way - it also means that you can use the >SBS RWW function to allow them to securely connect without needing a VPN >or other holes in the firewall. > >Why not ask the people that spec'd and built your SBS box to quote you a >small terminal server?
Guest Leythos Posted October 8, 2007 Posted October 8, 2007 Re: Our next Server In article <o44kg3lr57cl71fgartmdh0eroeh55s120@4ax.com>, john@pceffect.co.uk says... > Thanks for the replies. > > Just for the record - I'm the guy who spec'd and built the SBS box! When it comes to remote users, short of purchasing a PC for them to connect to at the main office (from the remote office), a Terminal Server is just the best way to go. You can setup like this: Remote Office: Neoware Terminals VPN between Main <> Remote (dedicated appliance method) All Remote printers setup as IP based printers (same for copier/scanner) Main Office: SBS Terminal Server Remote offices printers setup on SBS using remote IP VPN between Main <> Remote (dedicated appliance method) With this method you can have remote users running cheap $250 terminals or a cheap PC of any type - not even a domain member, and limit them access to just the terminal server - there is no reason for them to share files from the remote office. You also setup a printer rule in the firewall appliance to allow the SBS server to print to their remote printers - they must be IP based printers. This will save you a LOT of time and maintenance. -- 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)
Guest John F Kappler Posted October 8, 2007 Posted October 8, 2007 Re: Our next Server Thanks for that - Hadn't really thought about local printing and not even sure its a requirement. The remote users all already have PCs which is why I was going to use Terminal Services. (This was all a lot easier before Networks! - Yes, I'm that old!!) JohnK On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 08:18:58 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote: >In article <o44kg3lr57cl71fgartmdh0eroeh55s120@4ax.com>, >john@pceffect.co.uk says... >> Thanks for the replies. >> >> Just for the record - I'm the guy who spec'd and built the SBS box! > >When it comes to remote users, short of purchasing a PC for them to >connect to at the main office (from the remote office), a Terminal >Server is just the best way to go. > >You can setup like this: > >Remote Office: >Neoware Terminals >VPN between Main <> Remote (dedicated appliance method) >All Remote printers setup as IP based printers (same for copier/scanner) > >Main Office: >SBS >Terminal Server >Remote offices printers setup on SBS using remote IP >VPN between Main <> Remote (dedicated appliance method) > >With this method you can have remote users running cheap $250 terminals >or a cheap PC of any type - not even a domain member, and limit them >access to just the terminal server - there is no reason for them to >share files from the remote office. You also setup a printer rule in the >firewall appliance to allow the SBS server to print to their remote >printers - they must be IP based printers. > >This will save you a LOT of time and maintenance.
Guest Leythos Posted October 8, 2007 Posted October 8, 2007 Re: Our next Server In article <5f9kg3tv0iig46dtvlof589k7quduafgp7@4ax.com>, john@pceffect.co.uk says... > (This was all a lot easier before Networks! - Yes, I'm that old!!) I've been doing this since the 70's, so you're not alone :) -- 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)
Recommended Posts