New Windows Infrastructure

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup_deployment (More info?)

I need some assistance. Currently I have one Netware 6.5 server and one
UNIX
(AIX) box. We are in the process of contracting with a new CIS vendor.
Their application runs on Windows (which will replace the UNIX box). The
vendor's application runs on windows with an SQL database and I will also
need a web server for a separate module which will allow our customers to
access account data online.

I haven't had any experience with Windows server since NT4. I've received a
quote from a vendor to install the infrastructure. However, they indicated
that I need 5 servers for the implementation which include:

Citrix
SQL
Web Server
2 Domain Controllers.

I would think that if the app runs on windows, I do not need the citrix
server. The clients would connect through a terminal emulation or web
browser - guess that I need to clarify that with the vendor. Additionally,
I would think that with 2 domain controllers, one could run the vendor app
and the other sql. Does this make sense? I am also confused that the
vendor indicates that I need 5 Windows Server 2003 Standard licenses.
Aren't Citrix and SQL their own OSs?

Additionally, the vendor indicated that authentication for their app could
be through windows authentication or SQL. So, if I choose SQL, is there a
need to set up users in the domain? Sort of use these as stand alone
servers.

I am very confused. I have looked into attending training, but much of the
implementation and deployment seems focuses on dns / wins / dhcp and such
services. These are not something that I need or would use. DNS and DHCP
are running on my netware server.

Appreciate any assistance or insight into this.

Thanks,
Janet


Thanks,
Janet
1 answer Last reply
More about windows infrastructure
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup_deployment (More info?)

    Hi,

    > Their application runs on Windows (which will replace the UNIX box). The
    > vendor's application runs on windows with an SQL database and I will also
    > need a web server for a separate module which will allow our customers to
    > access account data online.

    OK.

    > quote from a vendor to install the infrastructure. However, they indicated
    > that I need 5 servers for the implementation which include:
    >
    > Citrix
    > SQL
    > Web Server
    > 2 Domain Controllers.
    >
    > I would think that if the app runs on windows, I do not need the citrix
    > server. The clients would connect through a terminal emulation or web
    > browser - guess that I need to clarify that with the vendor.

    Yes, I don't understand the need for Citrix either, it partly depends on
    how the clients are going to interact with the application? The idea
    behind Citrix is that you can have "thin clients" and all the hard work
    is done on the server, however, when I looked into this recently it
    seemed extremely expensive for very little gain over bog standard
    client/server apps. If you can move to diskless workstations and
    everything still works, then Citix sounds good, but otherwise I'm not
    conviced of it's cost/benifit. Anyone got good stories of Citrix,
    terminals, diskless stations, lost-cost CALs etc??

    > Additionally,
    > I would think that with 2 domain controllers, one could run the vendor app
    > and the other sql. Does this make sense? I am also confused that the
    > vendor indicates that I need 5 Windows Server 2003 Standard licenses.
    > Aren't Citrix and SQL their own OSs?

    This is the kind of setup I'd use, but that's for a big office block
    that can't afford downtime. If it's a smaller operation and doesn't need
    24/7 you could run apps on the DCs. It makes sense to have separate DCs
    though, because let's say you want to upgrade your Active Directory in
    two weeks time, with separate DCs it's easy, but if you've got a bunch
    of apps installed it could be a nightmare. It's similar with IIS. I
    currently run IIS and SQL on the same server - I'd argue this gives
    SUPERIOR security (contrary to what most people would say), but again
    there are arguments to have separate boxes. If it's a big operation, you
    MUST have separate boxes.

    > Additionally, the vendor indicated that authentication for their app could
    > be through windows authentication or SQL. So, if I choose SQL, is there a
    > need to set up users in the domain? Sort of use these as stand alone
    > servers.

    Difficult one; if you've got a big corporate internal structure, I'd say
    you MUST use Windows auth, but if all the users are out there with web
    browsers then Windows auth is pointless. One nice thing with Windows
    auth is that you don't have any plain text passwords sitting in text files.

    --
    Gerry Hickman (London UK)
Ask a new question

Read More

Infrastructure Windows