 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Server Forum / Small Business Server / SBS 4.0 & 4.5 / February 2004Virtual SBS server
OK, just got a new potential client who needs a server set up for the business. It's a small business of less than 10 people. However, most of those people live and work in various countries around the world. I had planned to get them an SBS server and locate it at their head office but was thinking that as 'head' office only has two people anyway, it might be better to have the server located at some server farm somewhere. Anyone know anyone provides a cheap but very reliable virtual SBS service? Their head office is in the UK but other users will be in France, Spain, China, Australia, Canada and Brazil so it's not really that important where the server will be. The service will need to be able to do all normal SBS tasks and look like it's onsite to the users. It'll mainly be used as Exchange server but we'll also need modest Web, file sharing & database capabilities too. Most importantly though they'd need to be able to install their own software on it. Their needs are very modest and most of the usual server farm solutions cost more in one year than actually buying the server for the office outright. Basically their needs are small scale but extremely flexible. ------------------------------------------------------------- Dale Walker London Techno Events Saiko! dale@sorted.org london@sorted.org saiko@sorted.org London, UK london.sorted.org saiko.sorted.org Locate the server wherever they can get the best net access with a static IP Everyone could then either connect via VPN or TS(which in SBS 2003 requires a second server) If their main usuage is Exchange they could be doing Outlook over HTTP Depending on the database VPN may work, TS is probably better  SignatureCris Hanna, SBS-MVP ---------------------------------------------- Please DO NOT respond to me directly but post all responses here in the newsgroup so that all can share the information OK, just got a new potential client who needs a server set up for the business. It's a small business of less than 10 people. However, most of those people live and work in various countries around the world. I had planned to get them an SBS server and locate it at their head office but was thinking that as 'head' office only has two people anyway, it might be better to have the server located at some server farm somewhere. Anyone know anyone provides a cheap but very reliable virtual SBS service? Their head office is in the UK but other users will be in France, Spain, China, Australia, Canada and Brazil so it's not really that important where the server will be. The service will need to be able to do all normal SBS tasks and look like it's onsite to the users. It'll mainly be used as Exchange server but we'll also need modest Web, file sharing & database capabilities too. Most importantly though they'd need to be able to install their own software on it. Their needs are very modest and most of the usual server farm solutions cost more in one year than actually buying the server for the office outright. Basically their needs are small scale but extremely flexible. ------------------------------------------------------------- Dale Walker London Techno Events Saiko! dale@sorted.org london@sorted.org saiko@sorted.org London, UK london.sorted.org saiko.sorted.org >Locate the server wherever they can get the best net access with a static IP >Everyone could then either connect via VPN or TS(which in SBS 2003 requires a second server) Hmm. I don't think they can stretch to 2 servers. Was wondering about VPN. Can it be set up to automatically connect on startup of Windows? (i.e before or during logging in), not afterwards. >If their main usuage is Exchange they could be doing Outlook over HTTP Nah. Outlook Web Access is far too limiting. It's OK to have a quick look but my clients will need full Rules facilities. >Depending on the database VPN may work, TS is probably better What are advantages of using Terminal Services for anything other than server admin over an Internet connection? Everyone already has a full desktop (XP Pro) so making the server do all the work would be counterproductive. ------------------------------------------------------------- Dale Walker London Techno Events Saiko! dale@sorted.org london@sorted.org saiko@sorted.org London, UK london.sorted.org saiko.sorted.org > >Locate the server wherever they can get the best net access with a static IP > >Everyone could then either connect via VPN or TS(which in SBS 2003 requires a second server) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > desktop (XP Pro) so making the server do all the work would be > counterproductive. SPEED!!!! If you have a server on internet and you are accessing documetns etc. then the respons is very slow if you dont run TS. But if you have 4MBit line dedicated to all workstations (up and down), then you dont need to run TS. /Per W. >> What are advantages of using Terminal Services for anything other than >> server admin over an Internet connection? Everyone already has a full [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >line dedicated to all workstations (up and down), then you dont need to run >TS. Yes, I do server admin using VPN/Netmeeting for another client so I know what it's like to run VPN using a standard 512/256 broadband line. It's not ideal and my initial thoughts would be to try and implement some sort of cache system for the file based operations. I can see that having the applications run on the server may speed certain tasks up but surely there's going to be a point when the amount of users trying to run different apps at the same time will actually make things slower. What kind of ratios are we looking at before the server starts suffering more than the data transfer time (assuming that the server would be at a server farm and would have a lot of available bandwidth but the clients more likely than not would only have a 512/256 broadband connection)? Also very worried that a network or server glitch will render everyone incapable of doing anything until things are sorted out. Head office would be using a 2MB line but I've no idea as yet what the others would be able to get. The other problem is that other offices may not be that permanent. In fact, a couple of staff require to be pretty much 'on the hoof' all the time. Mobility is a major factor here so not being able to have full leased lines is probably going to be one of the major issues I'm going to have to deal with. One other advantage for TS I can think of is that I can upgrade the software for each client far easier. The major drawback of that is that I'll have less chance of me getting a free flight to interesting parts of the world. Having said all that, email is going to be around 90% of the work, 8% file transfer and 2% the rest. The files, on the whole are just a few k in size. I could knock up a web based version of their database which would help keep data transfer down. ------------------------------------------------------------- Dale Walker London Techno Events Saiko! dale@sorted.org london@sorted.org saiko@sorted.org London, UK london.sorted.org saiko.sorted.org See My Comments below yours (hopefully in red) SignatureCris Hanna, SBS-MVP ---------------------------------------------- Please DO NOT respond to me directly but post all responses here in the newsgroup so that all can share the information On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 23:46:54 -0600, "Cris Hanna \(SBS-MVP\)" <crisnospamhanna@mindspring.com> wrote: >Locate the server wherever they can get the best net access with a static IP >Everyone could then either connect via VPN or TS(which in SBS 2003 requires a second server) Hmm. I don't think they can stretch to 2 servers. Was wondering about VPN. Can it be set up to automatically connect on startup of Windows? (i.e before or during logging in), not afterwards. Assuming that the workstations are either Win2k or XP, yes they can logon to the VPN at the same time they logon to the machine by checking that box at the logon screen that says connect via dialup networking and then choosing the VPN connection >If their main usuage is Exchange they could be doing Outlook over HTTP Nah. Outlook Web Access is far too limiting. It's OK to have a quick look but my clients will need full Rules facilities. Outlook over HTTP is different from OWA. It connects the Outlook client (must be Outlook 2003 ..which comes with SBS 2003) to the Exchange server via HTTP/RDP Its the same Outlook they would use if on a lan. Connection time might be a bit slower. >Depending on the database VPN may work, TS is probably better What are advantages of using Terminal Services for anything other than server admin over an Internet connection? Everyone already has a full desktop (XP Pro) so making the server do all the work would be counterproductive. As Per indicated in his response...pulling large files over VPN can be a killer, With TS its simply key strokes and video which passes over the "remote" wire. I realise they have big machines and so it seems like a waste, but unless you have a huge pipe for every connection (workstations and server) you will probably find VPN just too slow as it adds its own bandwidth overhead so even though you might have a 768 connection, it might really be more like 512kb For Database and large files of other types, TS is the answer ------------------------------------------------------------- Dale Walker London Techno Events Saiko! dale@sorted.org london@sorted.org saiko@sorted.org London, UK london.sorted.org saiko.sorted.org >See My Comments below yours (hopefully in red) Sorry but why are you using html in a USENET post? My Newsreader can't read it. IMO html is a complete waste of bandwidth with regard to Usenet. Many newsreaders can't physically read it and I'm not about to change a decent newsreader just to read the 0.01% of the people that think html is a good idea for Usenet. However, I'll spend a bit of time loading your post into a newsreader, reconfigure it for other people and post back. >Hmm. I don't think they can stretch to 2 servers. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >that box at the logon screen that says connect via dialup networking >and then choosing the VPN connection That's good. This bunch (especially the director) are about as computerphobic as you can imagine and adding extra layers of complication (no matter how small) sends them reeling into utter panic. He still cannot grasp the difference between a modem and broadband connection and I've only just managed to convince him that a central place to store most of the documents is better than having a copy on each remote desktop. My gran has a better concept of computing than he has. >>If their main usuage is Exchange they could be doing Outlook over HTTP > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Outlook over HTTP is different from OWA. It connects the Outlook client (must be Outlook 2003 ..which comes with SBS 2003) to the Exchange server via HTTP/RDP >Its the same Outlook they would use if on a lan. Connection time might be a bit slower. That sounds good. So it's pretty much the same as Outlook over VPN in terms of speed then? >>Depending on the database VPN may work, TS is probably better > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >As Per indicated in his response...pulling large files over VPN can be a killer, With TS its simply key strokes and video which passes over the "remote" wire. I realise they have big machines and so it seems like a waste, but unless you have a huge pipe for every connection (workstations and server) you will probably find VPN just too slow as it adds its own bandwidth overhead so even though you might have a 768 connection, it might really be more like 512kb >For Database and large files of other types, TS is the answer The significant problem is that the 'shared' files will be pretty small but the larger files are transitory (eg. designer -> printers) so TS in those situations wouldn't give a big advantage as the file still has to end up somewhere else rather than just sit on the server. I'm planning a web version of the database so that'll cure most of the database issues. It's a very small database and to be honest Access could cope with it just as well as SQL server. I'm seeing that TS is probably the way to go but I've got to persuade the director that this is the fastest way along with little impact to the way he's working now. ------------------------------------------------------------- Dale Walker London Techno Events Saiko! dale@sorted.org london@sorted.org saiko@sorted.org London, UK london.sorted.org saiko.sorted.org Sorry for the long time to respond. I have been posting in HTML since I became an MVP for SBS 5 years ago. I typically get a complaint about once a year. With regard to Outlook over HTTP, it might be a bit faster since you don't have the VPN overhead to contend with. I've not really compared the two side by side SignatureCris Hanna, SBS-MVP ---------------------------------------------- Please DO NOT respond to me directly but post all responses here in the newsgroup so that all can share the information On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:29:51 -0600, "Cris Hanna \(SBS-MVP\)" <crisnospamhanna@mindspring.com> wrote: >See My Comments below yours (hopefully in red) Sorry but why are you using html in a USENET post? My Newsreader can't read it. IMO html is a complete waste of bandwidth with regard to Usenet. Many newsreaders can't physically read it and I'm not about to change a decent newsreader just to read the 0.01% of the people that think html is a good idea for Usenet. However, I'll spend a bit of time loading your post into a newsreader, reconfigure it for other people and post back. >Hmm. I don't think they can stretch to 2 servers. > >Was wondering about VPN. Can it be set up to automatically connect on >startup of Windows? (i.e before or during logging in), not afterwards. >Assuming that the workstations are either Win2k or XP, yes they can >logon to the VPN at the same time they logon to the machine by checking >that box at the logon screen that says connect via dialup networking >and then choosing the VPN connection That's good. This bunch (especially the director) are about as computerphobic as you can imagine and adding extra layers of complication (no matter how small) sends them reeling into utter panic. He still cannot grasp the difference between a modem and broadband connection and I've only just managed to convince him that a central place to store most of the documents is better than having a copy on each remote desktop. My gran has a better concept of computing than he has. >>If their main usuage is Exchange they could be doing Outlook over HTTP > >Nah. Outlook Web Access is far too limiting. It's OK to have a quick >look but my clients will need full Rules facilities. > >Outlook over HTTP is different from OWA. It connects the Outlook client (must be Outlook 2003 ..which comes with SBS 2003) to the Exchange server via HTTP/RDP >Its the same Outlook they would use if on a lan. Connection time might be a bit slower. That sounds good. So it's pretty much the same as Outlook over VPN in terms of speed then? >>Depending on the database VPN may work, TS is probably better > >What are advantages of using Terminal Services for anything other than >server admin over an Internet connection? Everyone already has a full >desktop (XP Pro) so making the server do all the work would be >counterproductive. > >As Per indicated in his response...pulling large files over VPN can be a killer, With TS its simply key strokes and video which passes over the "remote" wire. I realise they have big machines and so it seems like a waste, but unless you have a huge pipe for every connection (workstations and server) you will probably find VPN just too slow as it adds its own bandwidth overhead so even though you might have a 768 connection, it might really be more like 512kb >For Database and large files of other types, TS is the answer The significant problem is that the 'shared' files will be pretty small but the larger files are transitory (eg. designer -> printers) so TS in those situations wouldn't give a big advantage as the file still has to end up somewhere else rather than just sit on the server. I'm planning a web version of the database so that'll cure most of the database issues. It's a very small database and to be honest Access could cope with it just as well as SQL server. I'm seeing that TS is probably the way to go but I've got to persuade the director that this is the fastest way along with little impact to the way he's working now. ------------------------------------------------------------- Dale Walker London Techno Events Saiko! dale@sorted.org london@sorted.org saiko@sorted.org London, UK london.sorted.org saiko.sorted.org >Sorry for the long time to respond. >I have been posting in HTML since I became an MVP for SBS 5 years ago. I typically get a complaint about once a year. I suppose, that being an MVP in Microsoft's stuff means you don't get out much ;) My clients use a variety of things so it pays for me to be lowest common denominator. I occasionally use Forte Agent on a flash keyring. 99% portable, just plug it in, maybe a minor fiddle with the outbound mail server and that's it. It doesn't do html though (probably fill up my keyring if it did). Also have a usenet client for my Palm Vx (just in case of real emergencies). Never actually needed it yet but it's insurance for that day when someone's network may get completely stuffed and I need to get online for some answers. Google is getting better for that now though Don't suppose you know if there's a terminal services apps for the Palm for SBS 2k or 2k3?. Never know when I might need to restart some services when I'm half way up a mountain somewhere. >With regard to Outlook over HTTP, it might be a bit faster since you don't have the VPN overhead to contend with. I've not really compared the two side by side Ok, so TS is a good idea. Now where can I get a cheap Virtual Server version? We don't need a full co-location site so was wondering if there's any companies out there that stuff several servers on one box for those that want co-location on the cheap. One more thing as an aside. Could I use Virtual PC 2004 to run SBS 2003 & Terminal Services Server on the same box at the same time? ------------------------------------------------------------- Dale Walker London Techno Events Saiko! dale@sorted.org london@sorted.org saiko@sorted.org London, UK london.sorted.org saiko.sorted.org > On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:24:56 -0600, "Cris Hanna \(SBS-MVP\)" > I suppose, that being an MVP in Microsoft's stuff means you don't get > out much ;) You are rude. > My clients use a variety of things so it pays for me to be lowest > common denominator. You mean cheap. > I occasionally use Forte Agent on a flash keyring. 99% portable, just > plug it in, maybe a minor fiddle with the outbound mail server and > that's it. It doesn't do html though (probably fill up my keyring if > it did). HTML is just text. I think you think HTML means something to do with pictures or video. > Also have a usenet client for my Palm Vx (just in case of real > emergencies). Never actually needed it yet but it's insurance for that > day when someone's network may get completely stuffed and I need to > get online for some answers. Google is getting better for that now > though Usenet client on a Palm V is "insurance". It boggles the mind. It also suggests that you require others to come up with your "answers". > Don't suppose you know if there's a terminal services apps for the > Palm for SBS 2k or 2k3?. Never know when I might need to restart some > services when I'm half way up a mountain somewhere. Your life is so exciting. I am green with envy. I saw you in that photo spread in Wired. The terminal services client is built in to all Windows CE devices (Pocket PC) , these days. > >With regard to Outlook over HTTP, it might be a bit faster since you don't have the VPN overhead to contend with. I've not really compared the two side by side > Ok, so TS is a good idea. You were an idiot to question the almighty Bill of the Terminal Services. > Now where can I get a cheap Virtual Server version? We don't need a > full co-location site so was wondering if there's any companies out > there that stuff several servers on one box for those that want > co-location on the cheap. Shop around, everything is for sale on the internet. Just pay the Bill for his licenses and you will Be OK. > One more thing as an aside. Could I use Virtual PC 2004 to run SBS > 2003 & Terminal Services Server on the same box at the same time? Why not use VMWare, which is a lot better than Virtual PC (unless you have a MSDN subscription, in which case the inferior product is better because it is free). Yes, you can run them in separate virtual PCs. But, you know, the cost of licensing is typically 600% the cost of the hardware. Unless you do not care about Caesar taking his share...you must pay the almighty Bill. Seriously, for disparate users, terminal services are the only way. Good luck, Evan > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Dale Walker London Techno Events Saiko! > dale@sorted.org london@sorted.org saiko@sorted.org > London, UK london.sorted.org saiko.sorted.org >> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:24:56 -0600, "Cris Hanna \(SBS-MVP\)" > >> I suppose, that being an MVP in Microsoft's stuff means you don't get >> out much ;) > >You are rude. There was a ;) there. It wasn't meant to be a serious comment. It was a gentle jibe at those people who can get so wrapped up in the MS way of doing things that they forget there are other users out there with other requirements/capabilities. >> My clients use a variety of things so it pays for me to be lowest >> common denominator. > >You mean cheap. Not all my clients are cheap. This one happens to be that's all. It's my job to get them the best solution for the best price. I'm here asking questions about unfamiliar solutions to try and work out if they're viable. >HTML is just text. I think you think HTML means something to do with >pictures or video. I can view raw html with Agent but most of it is rendered virtually unreadable due to the high amount of html code in some posts. >> Also have a usenet client for my Palm Vx (just in case of real >> emergencies). Never actually needed it yet but it's insurance for that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Usenet client on a Palm V is "insurance". It boggles the mind. Don't scoff. I've already used a Palm ssh client to sort out several problems on a co-located Linux server whilst I was away on holiday. Some clients get quite stroppy if you can't sort things out immediately and there are occasions when I'm nowhere near a computer to sort them out. Actually Google Groups on a Palm works probably far better. Having alternative methods to any problem (however bizarre) has helped me keep many happy clients over the years. >It also suggests that you require others to come up with your "answers". Occasionally yes. I can't know everything. That's what this ng is for isn't it? You know asking questions, getting answers and all that. It's all part of doing what is known in the trade as 'research'. >> Don't suppose you know if there's a terminal services apps for the >> Palm for SBS 2k or 2k3?. Never know when I might need to restart some >> services when I'm half way up a mountain somewhere. >The terminal services client is built in to all Windows CE >devices (Pocket PC) , these days. OK, but would rather stick with a Palm if I can thanks. My Vx is a bit old and cranky but I prefer the OS for handheld work, I have lots of expensive apps on it and the battery time means I can go many places (all weekend even) without having to worry about recharging. >> >With regard to Outlook over HTTP, it might be a bit faster since you >don't have the VPN overhead to contend with. I've not really compared the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >You were an idiot to question the almighty Bill of the Terminal Services. Bill (the devil) or bill (the large amount of money it costs to do anything the MS way these days)? >> Now where can I get a cheap Virtual Server version? We don't need a >> full co-location site so was wondering if there's any companies out [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Shop around, everything is for sale on the internet. Just pay the Bill for >his licenses and you will Be OK. Ah great. Back on track with real advice. >> One more thing as an aside. Could I use Virtual PC 2004 to run SBS >> 2003 & Terminal Services Server on the same box at the same time? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Yes, you can run them in separate virtual PCs. But, you know, the cost of >licensing is typically 600% the cost of the hardware. Yes, it's not far from the day when we'll be getting free PC's when we buy a new OS :( >Unless you do not care about Caesar taking his share...you must pay the almighty Bill. That's the big problem. I don't like the idea I have to pay for client OS license, server licence and a TS licence. Still many co-location providers have their own (re-)licensing schemes which can work out much more favourable to us mere mortals. I hope that MS allows these things >Seriously, for disparate users, terminal services are the only way. ------------------------------------------------------------- Dale Walker London Techno Events Saiko! dale@sorted.org london@sorted.org saiko@sorted.org London, UK london.sorted.org saiko.sorted.org |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.