domain/workgroups

[.one.]

Hi tried google but all goes again what the author says.

Im reading a book on windows server 2003 and have come across somthing thats puzzling me!

Im on a part when the author is talking about browser lists and he suggests 2 ways to cut them down.

1.Reduce the servers on the net work eg.disable the server service on xp clients e.t.c which seems a funney idea because then i have no control over them with mmc if i do that, but thats not the real part i have a problem with it's the next.

2. He says if you have a very large net work 500 or more it would be a good idea to break the network into Workgroups so the browser list will be more manageable,he says go to mycomputer rename e.t.c and do not select join domain select join Workgroup e.t.c err well i thought Workgroups was for small peer too peer networks or can you have workgroups with in a domain ? if so is this a good idea.

many thx jay.

ps. sorry if spelling is bad it's very late.

 

[Baz]

Workgroups are for small P2P networks,
For 500 users AD will cope with one domain very easily, if the budget permits you could have several domains and domain controllers, creating a multi domain forest..

 

[iaind]

Both of those seem like incredibly strange suggestions - what book is it?

As Baz said, splitting a forest into multiple domains is a supported and reccomended scenario for large networks.

 

[Sp00n]

500 users is not a "large" network, unless there are multiple sites then I wouldn't bother with more than one domain.

 

[Smackova]

Both of those seem like incredibly strange suggestions

Agreed. Makes no sense to me.

 

[Burnsy2023]

500 users is not a "large" network, unless there are multiple sites then I wouldn't bother with more than one domain.

Agreed. I'd say that between 250-~2000 users is medium sized network country.

 

[RSR]

Agreed. I'd say that between 250-~2000 users is medium sized network country.

+2

I agree. Id only use one domain for that amount of users.

Andy

 

[teaboy5]

Hi tried google but all goes again what the author says.

Im reading a book on windows server 2003 and have come across somthing thats puzzling me!

Im on a part when the author is talking about browser lists and he suggests 2 ways to cut them down.

1.Reduce the servers on the net work eg.disable the server service on xp clients e.t.c which seems a funney idea because then i have no control over them with mmc if i do that, but thats not the real part i have a problem with it's the next.

2. He says if you have a very large net work 500 or more it would be a good idea to break the network into Workgroups so the browser list will be more manageable,he says go to mycomputer rename e.t.c and do not select join domain select join Workgroup e.t.c err well i thought Workgroups was for small peer too peer networks or can you have workgroups with in a domain ? if so is this a good idea.

many thx jay.

ps. sorry if spelling is bad it's very late.

Who wrote this book?

 

[mr.bond]

500 users is not a "large" network, unless there are multiple sites then I wouldn't bother with more than one domain.

I wouldn't even recommend multiple domains when you have multiple sites. AD is logical and looks after itself very well, your sites are physical so long as you define your physical topology and tell AD about it then this is the way to go.
Unless you have very specific requirements, keep to a single domain.

 

[.one.]

Both of those seem like incredibly strange suggestions - what book is it?

As Baz said, splitting a forest into multiple domains is a supported and reccomended scenario for large networks.

The book is Mastering Windows Server 2003 Sybex.

He says also disable peer too peer networking and divide the browser list into workgroups.

Thx all for your help.

Wish i could copy and paste the chapter but too large.

cheers jay.

 

[Ev0]

I wouldn't even recommend multiple domains when you have multiple sites. AD is logical and looks after itself very well, your sites are physical so long as you define your physical topology and tell AD about it then this is the way to go.
Unless you have very specific requirements, keep to a single domain.

Exactly, a single domain works fine for a lot of users/sites.

The book sounds like a load of toss imho, workgroups??

 

[n30_mkii]

The main reason for multiple domains (used to be) and still is to a degree purely for administration reasons. Password requirements etc. That sometimes ties in with multiple sites, if there are seperate IT teams at those sites. Most people tend to do this with delegation at OU level now. As said AD scales incredibly well, and the password reason is pretty much resolved as of 2003 > 2008 with options of setting requirements via adsiedit (wasn't a feature straight in aduc)

I know some people disable netbios etc if they no longer have any 98 / nt out there that may require it.

 

[mr.bond]

The main reason for multiple domains (used to be) and still is to a degree purely for administration reasons. Password requirements etc. That sometimes ties in with multiple sites, if there are seperate IT teams at those sites. Most people tend to do this with delegation at OU level now. As said AD scales incredibly well, and the password reason is pretty much resolved as of 2003 > 2008 with options of setting requirements via adsiedit (wasn't a feature straight in aduc)

I know some people disable netbios etc if they no longer have any 98 / nt out there that may require it.

^^ And those are the general specific requirements (less so with AD than NT4), I can also tag on an organisations internal policical reasons - whilst not a technical reason this can be the case to have a seperate domain. A weird one I've read in the past (a long time ago, and to be quie frank not sure how true it was/is) was that in a very small handful of countries a company has a legal obligation to host their own internal services and have administrative access to them from that country only - again may have been tosh but who knows.