Peer to Peer network

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Chris, Aug 11, 2004.

  1. Chris

    Chris Guest

    Hi all

    Have been thinking about this for a couple of days and done some research
    but wanted to ask here all the same as I was hoping for some real world
    feedback on the best solution.

    The background is:
    A friend (a real one, not me taking in third person:)) has asked me to
    sort out their network, they just wanted a notebook added to the network
    an another user account added to one PC, then they decided that they
    needed to limit access of some folders to some people.

    The network is:
    There are 3 PC and 1 notebook on the network (the notebook is only used
    during peak times), all running windows XP pro. One PC, they call the
    "server" holds all the data, runs ICS, and printer and is used by one of
    the office staff. The network is using simple sharing. All the PC's and
    notebook are using FAT32 AFAIK. About 18 months ago the HDD failed in
    the "server" and so the whole lot went down. There "computer
    consultant" hadn't set up their backup set correctly so they wern't able
    to recover all their data. They were using MS Backup so I don't know how
    they got their back up onto CDRW - I prosume they just copied it over.
    Flowing on from this they got a copy of Back Up My PC (I susgested this
    so they could move their data files back to their PC's and use Back Up my
    PC across the network - but they decided to keep all the data on the 1
    HDD) IIRC, they had this system going back to win95 day's. I have had a
    poke around on a couple of the PC's and found that somethings are still
    not being backed up and found othewr things in several locations, in
    particular the outlook *.PST file(s) some backed up, some not. Also, the
    computer consultant has used some really unhelpful names like User for
    one PC and User's documents for documents on another PC which arn't
    "user's" documents. Actually, it's a complete dogs breakfast.

    My solution is:
    So, I have been asked to sort out all of this. It seems pretty simple as
    to what needs to happen.

    1. Put all the documents back onto peoples PC's - this can be divided up
    amoung the 3 PC's quite "locically"
    2. Convert the file system to NTFS (usless there is some reason why this
    hasn't been done - apart from no body getting round to it)
    3. Disable the simple sharing and set up 2 ACL's (all users and
    restricted users) and share the folders to those that require access.
    4. Set up Back Up My PC to back up each PC across the network.

    I know I may (have) to set up some NTFS Permissions if the file system is
    converted to NTFS.

    So, is this a locical solution ?

    Also, I'm not 100% clear, do I have to use NTFS if I want to set up ALC's
    ? If this is the case converting to NTFS will only load the "server"
    more won't it ? (another reason to de-centralise the data)

    I'm trying to reduce the load on the "server" while maintaining a
    funcational network in the event of a HDD fail as the business has 2 peak
    seasons (the HDD failed during one of these). Also I was intending to
    set up the Back up for them.

    The final result:
    On the one hand I don't want to get involved cause it's a real dogs
    breakfast, on the other I don't want to see my friend get let down. I'm
    not sure why I have been asked to look at this and not their "computer
    consultant".

    TIA (expecially so if you read this far :)
    Chris
     
    Chris, Aug 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Chris

    Harry Guest

    Chris wrote:

    > Hi all
    >
    > Have been thinking about this for a couple of days and done some research
    > but wanted to ask here all the same as I was hoping for some real world
    > feedback on the best solution.
    >
    > The background is:
    > A friend (a real one, not me taking in third person:)) has asked me to
    > sort out their network, they just wanted a notebook added to the network
    > an another user account added to one PC, then they decided that they
    > needed to limit access of some folders to some people.
    >
    > The network is:
    > There are 3 PC and 1 notebook on the network (the notebook is only used
    > during peak times), all running windows XP pro. One PC, they call the
    > "server" holds all the data, runs ICS, and printer and is used by one of
    > the office staff. The network is using simple sharing. All the PC's and
    > notebook are using FAT32 AFAIK. About 18 months ago the HDD failed in
    > the "server" and so the whole lot went down. There "computer
    > consultant" hadn't set up their backup set correctly so they wern't able
    > to recover all their data. They were using MS Backup so I don't know how
    > they got their back up onto CDRW - I prosume they just copied it over.
    > Flowing on from this they got a copy of Back Up My PC (I susgested this
    > so they could move their data files back to their PC's and use Back Up my
    > PC across the network - but they decided to keep all the data on the 1
    > HDD) IIRC, they had this system going back to win95 day's. I have had a
    > poke around on a couple of the PC's and found that somethings are still
    > not being backed up and found othewr things in several locations, in
    > particular the outlook *.PST file(s) some backed up, some not. Also, the
    > computer consultant has used some really unhelpful names like User for
    > one PC and User's documents for documents on another PC which arn't
    > "user's" documents. Actually, it's a complete dogs breakfast.
    >
    > My solution is:
    > So, I have been asked to sort out all of this. It seems pretty simple as
    > to what needs to happen.
    >
    > 1. Put all the documents back onto peoples PC's - this can be divided up
    > amoung the 3 PC's quite "locically"
    > 2. Convert the file system to NTFS (usless there is some reason why this
    > hasn't been done - apart from no body getting round to it)
    > 3. Disable the simple sharing and set up 2 ACL's (all users and
    > restricted users) and share the folders to those that require access.
    > 4. Set up Back Up My PC to back up each PC across the network.
    >
    > I know I may (have) to set up some NTFS Permissions if the file system is
    > converted to NTFS.
    >
    > So, is this a locical solution ?
    >
    > Also, I'm not 100% clear, do I have to use NTFS if I want to set up ALC's
    > ? If this is the case converting to NTFS will only load the "server"
    > more won't it ? (another reason to de-centralise the data)
    >
    > I'm trying to reduce the load on the "server" while maintaining a
    > funcational network in the event of a HDD fail as the business has 2 peak
    > seasons (the HDD failed during one of these). Also I was intending to
    > set up the Back up for them.
    >
    > The final result:
    > On the one hand I don't want to get involved cause it's a real dogs
    > breakfast, on the other I don't want to see my friend get let down. I'm
    > not sure why I have been asked to look at this and not their "computer
    > consultant".


    Honestly the simplest solution is to use a Linux server running Samba.
    The Linux box becomes shared disk space, and all printers (unless
    individually networked) are on Linux box. The advantage is relative
    simplicity and very high reliability. The actual filesystem used also
    becomes total transparent over a network.

    Anything else tends to be a dogs breakfast - as you have just described.
     
    Harry, Aug 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Chris

    Ryan Jacobs Guest

    "Harry" <> wrote in message
    news:G9mSc.11930$...
    >
    > Honestly the simplest solution is to use a Linux server running Samba.
    > The Linux box becomes shared disk space, and all printers (unless
    > individually networked) are on Linux box. The advantage is relative
    > simplicity and very high reliability. The actual filesystem used also
    > becomes total transparent over a network.
    >
    > Anything else tends to be a dogs breakfast - as you have just described.
    >


    And the translation is as follows......

    "Harry" Formally known as Nihil

    > wrote in message
    news:G9mSc.11930$...

    " Honestly" - means I don't have a clue, but I'll take this opportunity to
    spew complete crap

    "the simplest solution is to use a Linux server" - means if you believe
    this, then you'll believe anything

    Arrrgggh, I could go on, but.........

    The solutions are:

    Fire the consultant
    Sue his ass - if possible :)
    Cut your losses, and try to prevent the same from happening again.

    So, how do you prevent it from happening again?

    Use NTFS - not FAT
    Invest in a reliable backup system. Tape is good, CD-R is ok - but not the
    best
    Any backup MUST be off-site.
    If $$$ allow, look at moving to a client/server config (with the necessary
    disaster recovery procedures in place)
    Lock down the system.
    Invest in reliable advice - ironically this can be a lot cheaper than you
    may think - google is your friend :)

    Unfortunately, I'd like to be able to show you how to recover from this
    situation, but without further info & inside knowledge it becomes hard - so,
    all I can say is use this as a life-learning experience & ensure it doesn't
    happen again :)

    RJ out.
     
    Ryan Jacobs, Aug 11, 2004
    #3
  4. Chris

    Bok Guest

    Ryan Jacobs wrote:
    > Use NTFS - not FAT
    > Invest in a reliable backup system. Tape is good, CD-R is ok - but not the
    > best
    > Any backup MUST be off-site.


    I would add to this a bit.
    An offsite backup is required for D/R disaster recovery. It pays to have
    a local onsite backup for convenience and minimising recovery time in
    non D/R scenarios. These days, disk is cost-effective and convenient
    alternative to tape for local onsite backups.

    Backing up to a separate disk subsystem, either on the server or a
    different machine on the network and then backing that up to tape for
    offsite storage is a reasonable solution.
     
    Bok, Aug 11, 2004
    #4
  5. Chris

    Ryan Jacobs Guest

    "Bok" <> wrote in message
    news:cNmSc.2814$...
    > Ryan Jacobs wrote:
    > > Use NTFS - not FAT
    > > Invest in a reliable backup system. Tape is good, CD-R is ok - but not

    the
    > > best
    > > Any backup MUST be off-site.

    >
    > I would add to this a bit.
    > An offsite backup is required for D/R disaster recovery. It pays to have
    > a local onsite backup for convenience and minimising recovery time in
    > non D/R scenarios.


    Yeah, agreed. My preferred solution is the weekly full backup is kept
    ofsite. The daily incremental backups remain onsite. Not perfect - but is a
    reasonable mix between a reliable backup solution and convenience :)

    RJ out.
     
    Ryan Jacobs, Aug 11, 2004
    #5
  6. In article <4119ed13$>, says...
    > Hi all
    >
    > Have been thinking about this for a couple of days and done some research
    > but wanted to ask here all the same as I was hoping for some real world
    > feedback on the best solution.
    >
    > The background is:
    > A friend (a real one, not me taking in third person:)) has asked me to
    > sort out their network, they just wanted a notebook added to the network
    > an another user account added to one PC, then they decided that they
    > needed to limit access of some folders to some people.
    >
    > The network is:
    > There are 3 PC and 1 notebook on the network (the notebook is only used
    > during peak times), all running windows XP pro. One PC, they call the
    > "server" holds all the data, runs ICS, and printer and is used by one of
    > the office staff. The network is using simple sharing. All the PC's and
    > notebook are using FAT32 AFAIK. About 18 months ago the HDD failed in
    > the "server" and so the whole lot went down. There "computer
    > consultant" hadn't set up their backup set correctly so they wern't able
    > to recover all their data. They were using MS Backup so I don't know how
    > they got their back up onto CDRW - I prosume they just copied it over.
    > Flowing on from this they got a copy of Back Up My PC (I susgested this
    > so they could move their data files back to their PC's and use Back Up my
    > PC across the network - but they decided to keep all the data on the 1
    > HDD) IIRC, they had this system going back to win95 day's. I have had a
    > poke around on a couple of the PC's and found that somethings are still
    > not being backed up and found othewr things in several locations, in
    > particular the outlook *.PST file(s) some backed up, some not. Also, the
    > computer consultant has used some really unhelpful names like User for
    > one PC and User's documents for documents on another PC which arn't
    > "user's" documents. Actually, it's a complete dogs breakfast.
    >

    Look they have to end this absurd practice of someone using the server
    as a workstation. You don't need anything amazing to use as a server
    just make sure it has plenty of RAM and a hard drive free of bad
    sectors. Something with IDE RAID would be good.

    The PST files were probably in use at the time of backup - get people to
    close outlook before the backup happens or script the application to
    close.

    > My solution is:
    > So, I have been asked to sort out all of this. It seems pretty simple as
    > to what needs to happen.
    >
    > 1. Put all the documents back onto peoples PC's - this can be divided up
    > amoung the 3 PC's quite "locically"
    > 2. Convert the file system to NTFS (usless there is some reason why this
    > hasn't been done - apart from no body getting round to it)


    the conversion will waste some space but yes you definitely want to use
    NTFS.

    > 3. Disable the simple sharing and set up 2 ACL's (all users and
    > restricted users) and share the folders to those that require access.


    Simple file sharing should alway be disabled - it is truely annoying.

    > 4. Set up Back Up My PC to back up each PC across the network.
    >
    > I know I may (have) to set up some NTFS Permissions if the file system is
    > converted to NTFS.
    >
    > So, is this a locical solution ?
    >
    > Also, I'm not 100% clear, do I have to use NTFS if I want to set up ALC's
    > ? If this is the case converting to NTFS will only load the "server"
    > more won't it ? (another reason to de-centralise the data)
    >

    Yes. Can't see that using NTFS will significantly affect anything.

    > I'm trying to reduce the load on the "server" while maintaining a
    > funcational network in the event of a HDD fail as the business has 2 peak
    > seasons (the HDD failed during one of these). Also I was intending to
    > set up the Back up for them.
    >

    Reduce load on server by kicking off the user...

    > The final result:
    > On the one hand I don't want to get involved cause it's a real dogs
    > breakfast, on the other I don't want to see my friend get let down. I'm
    > not sure why I have been asked to look at this and not their "computer
    > consultant".
    >


    Documentation, Documentation.
    > TIA (expecially so if you read this far :)
    > Chris
    >

    Of course I'd use Samba ..
     
    wogers nemesis, Aug 11, 2004
    #6
  7. In article <4119ed13$>, says...
    > Hi all
    >
    > Have been thinking about this for a couple of days and done some research
    > but wanted to ask here all the same as I was hoping for some real world
    > feedback on the best solution.
    >
    > The background is:
    > A friend (a real one, not me taking in third person:)) has asked me to
    > sort out their network, they just wanted a notebook added to the network
    > an another user account added to one PC, then they decided that they
    > needed to limit access of some folders to some people.
    >
    > The network is:
    > There are 3 PC and 1 notebook on the network (the notebook is only used
    > during peak times), all running windows XP pro. One PC, they call the
    > "server" holds all the data, runs ICS, and printer and is used by one of
    > the office staff. The network is using simple sharing. All the PC's and
    > notebook are using FAT32 AFAIK. About 18 months ago the HDD failed in
    > the "server" and so the whole lot went down. There "computer
    > consultant" hadn't set up their backup set correctly so they wern't able
    > to recover all their data. They were using MS Backup so I don't know how
    > they got their back up onto CDRW - I prosume they just copied it over.
    > Flowing on from this they got a copy of Back Up My PC (I susgested this
    > so they could move their data files back to their PC's and use Back Up my
    > PC across the network - but they decided to keep all the data on the 1
    > HDD) IIRC, they had this system going back to win95 day's. I have had a
    > poke around on a couple of the PC's and found that somethings are still
    > not being backed up and found othewr things in several locations, in
    > particular the outlook *.PST file(s) some backed up, some not. Also, the
    > computer consultant has used some really unhelpful names like User for
    > one PC and User's documents for documents on another PC which arn't
    > "user's" documents. Actually, it's a complete dogs breakfast.
    >
    > My solution is:
    > So, I have been asked to sort out all of this. It seems pretty simple as
    > to what needs to happen.
    >
    > 1. Put all the documents back onto peoples PC's - this can be divided up
    > amoung the 3 PC's quite "locically"
    > 2. Convert the file system to NTFS (usless there is some reason why this
    > hasn't been done - apart from no body getting round to it)
    > 3. Disable the simple sharing and set up 2 ACL's (all users and
    > restricted users) and share the folders to those that require access.
    > 4. Set up Back Up My PC to back up each PC across the network.
    >
    > I know I may (have) to set up some NTFS Permissions if the file system is
    > converted to NTFS.
    >
    > So, is this a locical solution ?
    >
    > Also, I'm not 100% clear, do I have to use NTFS if I want to set up ALC's
    > ? If this is the case converting to NTFS will only load the "server"
    > more won't it ? (another reason to de-centralise the data)


    NTFS gives full permissions, you only get limited FAT32 permissions.

    Basically you have to create a user account on the "server" for each user
    that needs to access it, with the same password as they log into their
    workstation with.
    An issue could be the 10 connection limit.

    Turn off the simple file sharing, it is just too simple.

    Once you have user accounts you can set folder permissions on a per
    account or group basis.

    >
    > I'm trying to reduce the load on the "server" while maintaining a
    > funcational network in the event of a HDD fail as the business has 2 peak
    > seasons (the HDD failed during one of these). Also I was intending to
    > set up the Back up for them.
    >
    > The final result:
    > On the one hand I don't want to get involved cause it's a real dogs
    > breakfast, on the other I don't want to see my friend get let down. I'm
    > not sure why I have been asked to look at this and not their "computer
    > consultant".




    --
    "Marriage is a lifelong covenant commitment between
    a man and a woman.

    This foundation provides the best possible
    environment to raise our children."

    See http://www.maxim.org.nz/civilunions.html
     
    Patrick Dunford, Aug 11, 2004
    #7
  8. Chris

    Ryan Jacobs Guest

    "Patrick Dunford" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <4119ed13$>, says...
    >
    > Basically you have to create a user account on the "server" for each user
    > that needs to access it, with the same password as they log into their
    > workstation with.


    Note: its a peer-to peer network. By definition there is no "server".

    RJ out.
     
    Ryan Jacobs, Aug 11, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <>,
    says...

    > the conversion will waste some space but yes you definitely want to use
    > NTFS.


    NTFS is more efficient than FAT over 8 GB.


    --
    "Marriage is a lifelong covenant commitment between
    a man and a woman.

    This foundation provides the best possible
    environment to raise our children."

    See http://www.maxim.org.nz/civilunions.html
     
    Patrick Dunford, Aug 11, 2004
    #9
  10. Chris

    theseus Guest

    "Ryan Jacobs" <> wrote in message
    news:YNoSc.12009$...
    >
    > "Patrick Dunford" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In article <4119ed13$>, says...
    >>
    >> Basically you have to create a user account on the "server" for each user
    >> that needs to access it, with the same password as they log into their
    >> workstation with.

    >
    > Note: its a peer-to peer network. By definition there is no "server".
    >
    > RJ out.
    >
    >


    Every peer with files shared is running a server process.
     
    theseus, Aug 11, 2004
    #10
  11. Re: Peer to Peer network - OT reply

    "Marriage is a lifelong covenant commitment between a man and a woman.

    This foundation provides the best possible environment to raise our
    children."

    See http://www.maxim.org.nz/civilunions.html


    Try telling that to Amber Lundy, Patrick.


    ~!@#$%^&*()_+

    Millhouse: "We started out like Romeo and Juliet but it ended in tragedy."
     
    ..Waylon Smithers.., Aug 11, 2004
    #11
  12. Chris

    theseus Guest

    "wogers nemesis" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Of course I'd use Samba ..


    XP Backup currently won't work with samba
     
    theseus, Aug 11, 2004
    #12
  13. Chris

    Gavin Tunney Guest

    On 11 Aug 2004 21:55:31 +1200, Chris <> wrote:

    >Hi all
    >
    >Have been thinking about this for a couple of days and done some research
    >but wanted to ask here all the same as I was hoping for some real world
    >feedback on the best solution.
    >

    <snip>
    >The final result:
    >On the one hand I don't want to get involved cause it's a real dogs
    >breakfast, on the other I don't want to see my friend get let down. I'm
    >not sure why I have been asked to look at this and not their "computer
    >consultant".
    >
    >TIA (expecially so if you read this far :)
    >Chris


    Hi Chris. I'll give you my real world view. Keep it simple. Put a
    dedicated file server in and put all the files on it, except for
    possibly individual email if that's not important to them. Your labour
    will likely cost more than a cheap box that can be used as a server,
    so price shouldn't be a consideration.

    If they want maximum reliability then get a cheap used server like an
    old Compaq Proliant. They are definitely more reliable than the
    typical PC, and if it's just for use as a file server then you don't
    need a grunty box. If they want cheap but reasonably reliable then
    just about any decent PC will do, just put two hdds in & use software
    RAID...or an IDE RAID controller. A good UPS with decent filtering is
    mandatory, first thing on a PC that blows up from a power spike is
    nearly always the hard drive(s).

    For the server OS you can use Win2k Pro, or look at one of the
    excellent linux-based freebies like SME Server which support software
    RAID & have a web interface for admin. The only caveat with the Linux
    based stuff is you do need some proficiency in Linux so you can
    recover the server if it runs into problems. (you need that with Win2k
    too, but most people have that ok)

    For backups you need to get someone there allocated to do it, and give
    them a routine of (preferably) daily backups at a set time. If you
    don't then the backups won't happen. Offsite backups are essential in
    case of burglary, fire etc, DVD re-writers aren't the best option IMO
    but do a satisfactory job at very little cost & the media is portable.
    I also recommend a network backup to one of the workstations as well
    for extra insurance. Remember that the cheap backup software will not
    backup open files, so if they're using a database of any kind, like
    MYOB etc, all users have to be off it before it can be backed up. That
    means teaching the allocated user how to check the backup logs,
    especially if they're using a scheduler with their backup software.

    The main consideration when working out a system like that is to look
    at human habits & behaviour. The users won't keep their files in an
    orderly place, they won't do backups by themselves, so don't leave
    anything to chance. The only justification for peer-to-peer in a
    business was the high cost of a server & the OS that goes with it,
    that isn't a factor anymore so PtP is really a poor option now.

    Also bear in mind that very few users check their backups so you'll
    have to do it for them occasionally... a backup is only as good as the
    last *known good* backup & it's depressing how often that good backup
    turns out to be the one you did last time you called. You have to
    check just about every time you call. I got into the habit of backing
    up the server myself occasionally when on calls to sites...or at least
    watching over the user while they did their backup & making sure they
    were doing it right...... and frequently they weren't. The odd restore
    of randomly selected files is highly recommended. (not to original
    location though)

    You need to check the backup sets occasionally to make sure all the
    data has been selected for backup and/or the set itself hasn't been
    corrupted or altered by the user. And finally it pays to work out a
    simple disaster recovery plan so you know what's involved & how long
    it will take to be up & running again in the event of things going
    wrong.

    There's more... but that's all I can think of for now ;-)

    You'd be taking on a fair amount of responsibility there Chris, and
    you might want to think about whether you really want to get involved
    with it or not.

    Cheers

    Gavin
     
    Gavin Tunney, Aug 12, 2004
    #13
  14. In article <EDvSc.2851$>, says...
    >
    > "Ryan Jacobs" <> wrote in message
    > news:YNoSc.12009$...
    > >
    > > "Patrick Dunford" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> In article <4119ed13$>, says...
    > >>
    > >> Basically you have to create a user account on the "server" for each user
    > >> that needs to access it, with the same password as they log into their
    > >> workstation with.

    > >
    > > Note: its a peer-to peer network. By definition there is no "server".


    A server provides services to a client. There isn't a definition that
    says a machine in a peer to peer network can't act as a server. NT/2k/XP
    running peer to peer doesn't provide the full functionality of a
    NT/2k/2003 server product, the main limitation being the 10 connection
    limit. But it's still a server.


    --
    "Marriage is a lifelong covenant commitment between
    a man and a woman.

    This foundation provides the best possible
    environment to raise our children."

    See http://www.maxim.org.nz/civilunions.html
     
    Patrick Dunford, Aug 12, 2004
    #14
  15. Chris

    Ryan Jacobs Guest

    "Patrick Dunford" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <EDvSc.2851$>, says...
    > >
    > > "Ryan Jacobs" <> wrote in message
    > > news:YNoSc.12009$...
    > > >
    > > > "Patrick Dunford" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > >> In article <4119ed13$>,

    says...
    > > >>
    > > >> Basically you have to create a user account on the "server" for each

    user
    > > >> that needs to access it, with the same password as they log into

    their
    > > >> workstation with.
    > > >
    > > > Note: its a peer-to peer network. By definition there is no "server".

    >
    > A server provides services to a client. There isn't a definition that
    > says a machine in a peer to peer network can't act as a server. NT/2k/XP
    > running peer to peer doesn't provide the full functionality of a
    > NT/2k/2003 server product, the main limitation being the 10 connection
    > limit. But it's still a server.
    >


    No definitions?

    LOL

    http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:Peer-to-Peer Network

    Yes, obviously, a peer can "serve files". Although, technically speaking, it
    is not serving files - it is sharing files. And there IS a difference.

    "The main limitation being the 10 connection limit" - LOL. That is but one
    of the MANY severe limitations.

    RJ out.
     
    Ryan Jacobs, Aug 12, 2004
    #15
  16. Chris

    theseus Guest

    "Ryan Jacobs" <> wrote in message
    news:nizSc.12170$...
    >
    > "Patrick Dunford" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In article <EDvSc.2851$>, says...
    >> >
    >> > "Ryan Jacobs" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:YNoSc.12009$...
    >> > >
    >> > > "Patrick Dunford" <> wrote in message
    >> > > news:...
    >> > >> In article <4119ed13$>,

    > says...
    >> > >>
    >> > >> Basically you have to create a user account on the "server" for each

    > user
    >> > >> that needs to access it, with the same password as they log into

    > their
    >> > >> workstation with.
    >> > >
    >> > > Note: its a peer-to peer network. By definition there is no "server".

    >>
    >> A server provides services to a client. There isn't a definition that
    >> says a machine in a peer to peer network can't act as a server. NT/2k/XP
    >> running peer to peer doesn't provide the full functionality of a
    >> NT/2k/2003 server product, the main limitation being the 10 connection
    >> limit. But it's still a server.
    >>

    >
    > No definitions?
    >
    > LOL
    >
    > http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:Peer-to-Peer Network
    >
    > Yes, obviously, a peer can "serve files". Although, technically speaking,
    > it
    > is not serving files - it is sharing files. And there IS a difference.
    >
    > "The main limitation being the 10 connection limit" - LOL. That is but one
    > of the MANY severe limitations.
    >
    > RJ out.
    >

    Why don't you get Divine to join in, who knows what new definition of server
    you will come up with.
     
    theseus, Aug 12, 2004
    #16
  17. Chris

    Ryan Jacobs Guest

    "theseus" <> wrote in message
    news:QvzSc.2889$...
    >
    > "Ryan Jacobs" <> wrote in message
    > news:nizSc.12170$...
    > >
    > > "Patrick Dunford" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> In article <EDvSc.2851$>, says...
    > >> >
    > >> > "Ryan Jacobs" <> wrote in message
    > >> > news:YNoSc.12009$...
    > >> > >
    > >> > > "Patrick Dunford" <> wrote in message
    > >> > > news:...
    > >> > >> In article <4119ed13$>,

    > > says...
    > >> > >>
    > >> > >> Basically you have to create a user account on the "server" for

    each
    > > user
    > >> > >> that needs to access it, with the same password as they log into

    > > their
    > >> > >> workstation with.
    > >> > >
    > >> > > Note: its a peer-to peer network. By definition there is no

    "server".
    > >>
    > >> A server provides services to a client. There isn't a definition that
    > >> says a machine in a peer to peer network can't act as a server.

    NT/2k/XP
    > >> running peer to peer doesn't provide the full functionality of a
    > >> NT/2k/2003 server product, the main limitation being the 10 connection
    > >> limit. But it's still a server.
    > >>

    > >
    > > No definitions?
    > >
    > > LOL
    > >
    > >

    http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:Peer-to-Peer Network
    > >
    > > Yes, obviously, a peer can "serve files". Although, technically

    speaking,
    > > it
    > > is not serving files - it is sharing files. And there IS a difference.
    > >
    > > "The main limitation being the 10 connection limit" - LOL. That is but

    one
    > > of the MANY severe limitations.
    > >
    > > RJ out.
    > >

    > Why don't you get Divine to join in, who knows what new definition of

    server
    > you will come up with.
    >
    >


    Huh?

    I didn't come up with a new definition.

    RJ out.
     
    Ryan Jacobs, Aug 12, 2004
    #17
  18. Chris

    theseus Guest

    "Ryan Jacobs" <> wrote in message
    news:8DzSc.12183$...
    > Huh?
    >
    > I didn't come up with a new definition.
    >



    >> > Yes, obviously, a peer can "serve files". Although, technically

    > speaking,
    >> > it
    >> > is not serving files - it is sharing files. And there IS a difference.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing
    Usually file sharing follows the peer-to-peer (P2P) model, where the files
    are stored on and served by personal computers of the users.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_server
    In telecommunication, the term file server has the following meanings:

    1.. A high-capacity disk storage device or a computer that each computer
    on a network can use or access and retrieve files that can be shared among
    attached computers.

    2.. A computer program, that allows different programs, running on other
    computers, to access the files of that computer.
    Source: from Federal Standard 1037C
     
    theseus, Aug 12, 2004
    #18
  19. Chris

    Ryan Jacobs Guest

    "theseus" <> wrote in message
    news:UbDSc.2919$...
    >
    > "Ryan Jacobs" <> wrote in message
    > news:8DzSc.12183$...
    > > Huh?
    > >
    > > I didn't come up with a new definition.
    > >

    >
    >
    > >> > Yes, obviously, a peer can "serve files". Although, technically

    > > speaking,
    > >> > it
    > >> > is not serving files - it is sharing files. And there IS a

    difference.
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing
    > Usually file sharing follows the peer-to-peer (P2P) model, where the files
    > are stored on and served by personal computers of the users.
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_server
    > In telecommunication, the term file server has the following meanings:
    >
    > 1.. A high-capacity disk storage device or a computer that each computer
    > on a network can use or access and retrieve files that can be shared among
    > attached computers.
    >
    > 2.. A computer program, that allows different programs, running on other
    > computers, to access the files of that computer.
    > Source: from Federal Standard 1037C
    >
    >


    Hmmm, concession ceded :)

    Although, I guess it comes down to interpretation of a given definition. We
    could argue forever on semantics (sp?).

    RJ out.
     
    Ryan Jacobs, Aug 12, 2004
    #19
  20. In article <QvzSc.2889$>, says...
    >
    > "Ryan Jacobs" <> wrote in message
    > news:nizSc.12170$...
    > >
    > > "Patrick Dunford" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> In article <EDvSc.2851$>, says...
    > >> >
    > >> > "Ryan Jacobs" <> wrote in message
    > >> > news:YNoSc.12009$...
    > >> > >
    > >> > > "Patrick Dunford" <> wrote in message
    > >> > > news:...
    > >> > >> In article <4119ed13$>,

    > > says...
    > >> > >>
    > >> > >> Basically you have to create a user account on the "server" for each

    > > user
    > >> > >> that needs to access it, with the same password as they log into

    > > their
    > >> > >> workstation with.
    > >> > >
    > >> > > Note: its a peer-to peer network. By definition there is no "server".
    > >>
    > >> A server provides services to a client. There isn't a definition that
    > >> says a machine in a peer to peer network can't act as a server. NT/2k/XP
    > >> running peer to peer doesn't provide the full functionality of a
    > >> NT/2k/2003 server product, the main limitation being the 10 connection
    > >> limit. But it's still a server.
    > >>

    > >
    > > No definitions?
    > >
    > > LOL
    > >
    > > http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:Peer-to-Peer Network
    > >
    > > Yes, obviously, a peer can "serve files". Although, technically speaking,
    > > it
    > > is not serving files - it is sharing files. And there IS a difference.


    Miniscule. In a practical sense the difference is extremely small.

    Windows NT/2k/XP workstation is just a stripped version of server, in
    fact there was supposed to be a registry key that was the only difference
    in NT.

    > >
    > > "The main limitation being the 10 connection limit" - LOL. That is but one
    > > of the MANY severe limitations.


    NT/2k/XP workstation are capable of doing user level access control in
    peer to peer. Windows 98 can't act as a server with user level access
    control, only share level access control.

    If you're meaning a domain server, that is one type of server. It doesn't
    have to be set up that way. When we did our NT class with one machine set
    up as a server and the rest as workstations, I'm pretty sure it wasn't
    set up as a domain server.

    The domain server offers all sorts of things, but you can run NT server
    in peer to peer. You don't get logon scripts, roaming profiles, active
    directory group policies and stuff, but people don't necessarily need
    them.

    --
    "Marriage is a lifelong covenant commitment between
    a man and a woman.

    This foundation provides the best possible
    environment to raise our children."

    See http://www.maxim.org.nz/civilunions.html
     
    Patrick Dunford, Aug 12, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Doug A Moller

    Need help with peer to peer no hub network

    Doug A Moller, Jun 23, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    5,819
  2. Seinman

    Peer to Peer Network Problem

    Seinman, Oct 22, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    639
    ANONYMOUS
    Oct 22, 2005
  3. greg

    need help with peer to peer network

    greg, Aug 26, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    591
  4. RDO Computer Services

    Looking for a Peer-Peer Network Backup Solution

    RDO Computer Services, Apr 18, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    474
    RDO Computer Services
    Apr 18, 2005
  5. =?Utf-8?B?SGlsbGFiYWxvbw==?=

    peer to peer network problem

    =?Utf-8?B?SGlsbGFiYWxvbw==?=, Jul 30, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,629
    Doug Sherman [MVP]
    Jul 31, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page