Domain vs. Workgroup

[goombawaho]

Would anyone recommend adding computers to a new single server 2008 in a domain vs. running as a workgroup? The only thing it will be used for will be accessing a client/server database application and storing office documents.

There would be six windows 7 workstations but only three users that will be using all those workstations. I'm trying to figure out what benefits there would be vs. negatives to putting them in a domain.

 

[technome]

At the moment I am running a number of small buisness clients within your range of wks. I find it easier to maintain workgroup setups with under 10-12 machines, that is with a low number of network changes/attached devices (generally). after 12 machines you pushing for Active Directory. I say generally because I have a research lab network,12 wks, begging for an AD setup due to the complexity, number of changes, attached devices, temporary employees, major security issues (top secret work),etc. On the other hand I have a small law firm, 10 wks, which rarely have ANY changes and the workgroup setup is fine. Once you hit 15 or more machines, even without frequent changes, AD is the way to go, at least thats my take on it.
With AD, a second domain controller is a requirement after a small number of wks. Overall with the requirements you have described, AD is not required, which would just add complexity to a rather simple setup/maintainance. If the the client has excess money, before I would go AD, I would be hooking them up with Gateway services for secure remote access, before instituting AD.
Just lately I had a client with 5 machines, AD only 1 DC, go belly up as the client allowed a raid system to die ( they did not get replacement disks for weeks, after I gave them the link for the disks). I had to convert the slow wks back to a workgroup setup (took almost an entire day due to the speed of the old machines), and once they get a new server, I have to convert them back to AD... unnecessary time spent.



........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm

 

[goombawaho]

I guess I'm leaning towards that and I can still map network drives for both database application access and general data centralization/storage. Would like to hear any dissenting opinions.

What about running DNS on the server - just let it run off the DSL modem/router.

It seems kind of a waste to use so few features of the server - basically just file storage.

 

[technome]

What about running DNS on the server - just let it run off the DSL modem/router"
I run DNS/DHCP off the servers, miniscule server resources are used. If it on a hardware router and the router dies then you have issues, not sure of your router capabilities, but I always use "forwarders" on the server for added security.
Other server uses...
In a workgroup, you could set it up as a Terminal server Gateway/Terminal server for secure access, and as a file server. Terminal service uses a good bit of resources, as does a database, so you would need sufficient ram/cpu. On a Domain controller, I would not attempt to use it for remote access due to security issues. I have a few clients with TSG, they love it, great for me, save me countless trips, especially when the client is >20 miles away. This server is a low end unit but it still run programs faster (via RDP) then wks will run them locally.
Centralized Anti Virus. I love/hate Symantec Corp edition, centalized management/deployment. I have not had a virus become resident in years.
Centalized backup. The research client mentioned is not using a file server, only a bare basic server for TSG, everything is on work stations, backup is a nightmare. The onwer has been fighting a file server for years, they just lost some critical data lately so I hoping they see the light.
As to disenting ideas. Even though I prefer workgroup setups for small networks,that is due to money. AD has better security, the ability for centralized policy and software distribution among many other features. The issue is the intial setup and maintenance costs, no less for safety, a second DC should be online..it is a point of money. Many of my smaller client just do not have it.


........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm

 

[goombawaho]

They vetoed centralized AV due to cost - was going to use AVG

I would use forwarders if I put DNS on the server.

I'm going to run DHCP on a Cisco RV042 connected to an 2Wire 2701HG-B DSL modem in bridged mode.

Was going to RDP into the server via VPN tunnel to the RV042

Was going to put all files on the server, but client is now waffling about buying online backup.

It's all pointing toward a very minimally utilized server. Sad banana.

 

[technome]

Tough dealing with clients with limited resources, being either money or useable brain cells. At the moment I dealing with one with very limited brain cells.


........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm

 

[goombawaho]

There was a great article on technibble about "firing your bad customers". They said, don't fool around with dimwit/lousy/non-paying customers. Be good to yourself - the customers NEVER improve their behavior.

http://www.technibble.com/knowing-when-to-let-go-of-bad-computer-repair-customers/

 

[technome]

True, poor customers rarely change.

In the 90s and early 2000s, I fired a few, now it a lot harder due to the economy. The 90s was the golden era, there were so few techs, no competition, I only accepted good clients, all others I politely refused to work for them. Was working >12 hour days, 6 days a week weeks for years....would not want to go back to the crazy hours, but I wish more billable hours coming in.


........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm