How many of you run Active Directory at home (As apposed to P2P)

oddjob62 · 21 Nov 2006 at 21:46

zen62619 said:
I run server 2003 R2 licenced from my company with dns/ad/dhcp in vmware for test purpouses only. It is not overkill. It's called learning....

Especially if you work in a company who use it and you need to test somthing out in your own time.

Yes exactly. I've got 2 DCs plus a load of VMs (exchange cluster, a couple of ISA servers, Root CA, etc) which i power up when i need to test anything out.

toString · 21 Nov 2006 at 22:20

ghgh said:
lol

its meant to only work on systems with more than 8 processors? apparently but it seems to run just fine on my duallie...might be overkill but it seems to function well.

And I thought I was going over the top running 2003 Enterprise on an old athlon :cool:

Biffa · 22 Nov 2006 at 00:26

I run a 2000 AD server on a Dual Ppro 200Mhz with 196MB Ram at home.

Its the DC, DHCP, DNS & IIS server for my network

Also runs a Postoffice Mail server. Uptime is about 9 months (since I rebuilt the SCSI drive)

DustyMiller · 22 Nov 2006 at 11:09

Same here, Running SBS 2003 at home, for 1 PC, and three laptops over a wireless link.

And all legal too, I get my home mails whilst im here at work. and can RD to home, to fix any issue that the kids or the misses muck up.

And i can use ny home link for any big downloads i need, and them burn them to DVD for her to post out. Great

tonyyeb · 22 Nov 2006 at 13:32

KingAdora said:
And I thought I was going over the top running 2003 Enterprise on an old athlon

The only REAL issue i see is the cost difference

:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/features/comparefeatures.mspx

riddlermarc · 22 Nov 2006 at 13:53

Boycie said:
How much did you pay for that then

If he has a MSDN subscription, it wouldn't cost anything

tonyyeb · 22 Nov 2006 at 15:42

riddlermarc said:
If he has a MSDN subscription, it wouldn't cost anything

Or Technet

ruffneck · 22 Nov 2006 at 18:56

except technet copies are 180 day trials and MSDN copies arn't

tonyyeb · 22 Nov 2006 at 19:06

ruffneck said:
except technet copies are 180 day trials and MSDN copies arn't

Dunno about that. We have a Technet Plus subscription and we get full copies with full product keys. The only restriction is that they cannot be used in a production environment. Only for testing. Products that dont need activation under VL are required under TechNet. You are also limited to about 10 activations on most products. More info here:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/ms772427.aspx

Otherwise why pay £1,000 per year for technet plus when you can download most products as an eval from microsofts site??!!

NathP · 23 Nov 2006 at 10:06

I recently moved to a domain at home just cause its easier to share shares/printers and email accounts and not having to setup local accounts on every computer.

tonyyeb · 23 Nov 2006 at 11:04

FGZ said:
I recently moved to a domain at home just cause its easier to share shares/printers and email accounts and not having to setup local accounts on every computer.

Thats a good reason plus with the ease of setting up AD in 2003 it is worth doing.

Deleted member 58846 · 23 Nov 2006 at 14:13

with companies now gettin bigger and better it is needed to keep up the knowledge in IT. The easiest way to do it is to do it on a test network before it is implimented on a real network.

This iliminates errors in the real world resulting to happy customers.

Mikey · 2 Apr 2007 at 03:21

I'm running SBS 2003 at home, but need to get a cluster set-up for exchange 2007. Again for learning purposes.

Was going to use virtual server for the clustering rather than VMWare

I need to get some more kit, but it's the electricity bill I need to watch. hoping to get a DL380 G2 soon

I need HP proliant skills too.... (although they don't know I'm already HP APS certified)

matja · 2 Apr 2007 at 10:19

tonyyeb said:
The only REAL issue i see is the cost difference :

It supports 32 CPU's. Somehow MS think they can charge more for that, as if its technically far more complex. I like the Linux way of editing the CONFIG_NR_CPUS in your kernel config file to whatever you want

DeeJay-Mo · 3 Apr 2007 at 12:14

A lot of people are talking about the cost of running 2003 server. Did you know that you can set up SAMBA on linux to act as a domain controller? It's not as fully featured, but you can do quite a lot with it, roaming profiles and LDAP for instance. I prefer it because it's easier to setup a streamlined setup without all the bloat that Windows has.

DJMK4 · 3 Apr 2007 at 22:59

DeeJay-Mo said:
A lot of people are talking about the cost of running 2003 server. Did you know that you can set up SAMBA on linux to act as a domain controller? It's not as fully featured, but you can do quite a lot with it, roaming profiles and LDAP for instance. I prefer it because it's easier to setup a streamlined setup without all the bloat that Windows has.

I wouldnt say it was easier to set-up...If you dont have much experience with Linux based OS (Like me

) then its hard to get your head around it all.

Plus the reason i would prefer using a Windows based Server OS over Linux is that it doing it to learn as we use Windows Based servers in our office.

DeeJay-Mo · 4 Apr 2007 at 00:31

What I mean is it is possible to start off with a fairly lightweight distro, such as slax, and then only add the packages you need resulting in a relatively bloat-free environment. With Windows a lot of extra unnecesarry crap is installed which is quite tricky to get rid of. It is possible, but there is a high possibility of breaking the operating system. I'm not saying that Linux is easy to set up, but if you're prepared to spend the time tweaking and hacking it, then it is possible to set up an environment which is powerful but not resource hungry.

How many of you run Active Directory at home (As apposed to P2P)

Deleted member 58846

Deleted member 58846