Re: SBS alongside Server 2000 Standard / 10 connection limit in Win2k Pro

Yes, but it will be more expensive to implememnt a standalone server
(workgroup mode) than to implement a member server of the SBS domain. (I
expect)

What is the motivation for maintaining the workgroup?

"Iain King" <> wrote in message
news:b08a5ac2-9914-4c26-a0f9-...
> We currently have a Windows 2003 SBS server running a domain for
> management, alongside a workgroup of computers used for scanning. The
> scanning software is licensed and each client needs to ping a host
> computer periodically to continue operating. We are currently running
> the scan host software on a Windows 2000 Pro PC, but are running into
> problems connecting all the available clients, and from what I can
> determine this is due to the 10 network connection limit imposed by
> non-server versions of Win2K. There is a reason we can't run the host
> software on the SBS PC.
>
> If we upgrade that PC to use Windows 2000 Server Standard, will that
> allow more than 10 connections? Can such a PC sit on the same network
> (in a workgroup, not the domain) as 2003 SBS or will the SBS choke?
> I'd also be interested in any other solutions for the connection limit
> which don't require an expensive upgrade.
>
> Thanks,
> Iain

You have a common misconception. There can be multiple additional servers in
a SBS domain. The SBS, however, always holds all the necessary FSMO roles.

"Iain King" <> wrote in message
news:1fadf65f-6e7a-4d33-934e-...
On Oct 28, 12:25 pm, "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <n...@your.nellie> wrote:
> Yes, but it will be more expensive to implememnt a standalone server
> (workgroup mode) than to implement a member server of the SBS domain. (I
> expect)
>
> What is the motivation for maintaining the workgroup?
>
> "Iain King" <iaink...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b08a5ac2-9914-4c26-a0f9-...
>
> > We currently have a Windows 2003 SBS server running a domain for
> > management, alongside a workgroup of computers used for scanning. The
> > scanning software is licensed and each client needs to ping a host
> > computer periodically to continue operating. We are currently running
> > the scan host software on a Windows 2000 Pro PC, but are running into
> > problems connecting all the available clients, and from what I can
> > determine this is due to the 10 network connection limit imposed by
> > non-server versions of Win2K. There is a reason we can't run the host
> > software on the SBS PC.
>
> > If we upgrade that PC to use Windows 2000 Server Standard, will that
> > allow more than 10 connections? Can such a PC sit on the same network
> > (in a workgroup, not the domain) as 2003 SBS or will the SBS choke?
> > I'd also be interested in any other solutions for the connection limit
> > which don't require an expensive upgrade.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Iain

Can you explain 'member server of domain' - I was under the impression
that with an SBS server, there could be no other servers on the
domain. There's no great desire to keep the workgroup, other than as
a simple security measure, though we are using all our current
allotment of domain CALs .

Iain

In article <1fadf65f-6e7a-4d33-934e-415e949cfd44
@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, says...
> On Oct 28, 12:25*pm, "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <n...@your.nellie> wrote:
> > Yes, but it will be more expensive to implememnt a standalone server
> > (workgroup mode) than to implement a member server of the SBS domain. (I
> > expect)
> >
> > What is the motivation for maintaining the workgroup?
> >
> > "Iain King" <iaink...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:b08a5ac2-9914-4c26-a0f9-....
> >
> > > We currently have a Windows 2003 SBS server running a domain for
> > > management, alongside a workgroup of computers used for scanning. *The
> > > scanning software is licensed and each client needs to ping a host
> > > computer periodically to continue operating. *We are currently running
> > > the scan host software on a Windows 2000 Pro PC, but are running into
> > > problems connecting all the available clients, and from what I can
> > > determine this is due to the 10 network connection limit imposed by
> > > non-server versions of Win2K. *There is a reason we can't run the host
> > > software on the SBS PC.
> >
> > > If we upgrade that PC to use Windows 2000 Server Standard, will that
> > > allow more than 10 connections? *Can such a PC sit on the same network
> > > (in a workgroup, not the domain) as 2003 SBS or will the SBS choke?
> > > I'd also be interested in any other solutions for the connection limit
> > > which don't require an expensive upgrade.
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Iain
>
> Can you explain 'member server of domain' - I was under the impression
> that with an SBS server, there could be no other servers on the
> domain. There's no great desire to keep the workgroup, other than as
> a simple security measure, though we are using all our current
> allotment of domain CALs .

No, there can be other servers - just not another domain controller
(only SBS can be the 'root of a forest').

--
Duncan.

that pretty well sums it up, common misconception.

You can have additional DC's in an SBS domain.
You can have non-DC (member) servers in an SBS domain.

Matter of fact, your SBS CALs cover access to all servers in the domain. SBS
CALs do not however include TS CALs. NOTE that this access relies on the
additional servers being in the SBS domain (I'm pretty sure).

Also note that the access to additional servers is limited to the same, or
earlier, version as SBS. In an SBS03 domain access to 03 servers is covered,
but not 08. In an SBS 08 domain access is covered for 08 servers, but not 08
R2 (TTBOMK).

"SteveB" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> You have a common misconception. There can be multiple additional servers
> in a SBS domain. The SBS, however, always holds all the necessary FSMO
> roles.
>
> "Iain King" <> wrote in message
> news:1fadf65f-6e7a-4d33-934e-...
> On Oct 28, 12:25 pm, "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <n...@your.nellie> wrote:
>> Yes, but it will be more expensive to implememnt a standalone server
>> (workgroup mode) than to implement a member server of the SBS domain. (I
>> expect)
>>
>> What is the motivation for maintaining the workgroup?
>>
>> "Iain King" <iaink...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:b08a5ac2-9914-4c26-a0f9-...
>>
>> > We currently have a Windows 2003 SBS server running a domain for
>> > management, alongside a workgroup of computers used for scanning. The
>> > scanning software is licensed and each client needs to ping a host
>> > computer periodically to continue operating. We are currently running
>> > the scan host software on a Windows 2000 Pro PC, but are running into
>> > problems connecting all the available clients, and from what I can
>> > determine this is due to the 10 network connection limit imposed by
>> > non-server versions of Win2K. There is a reason we can't run the host
>> > software on the SBS PC.
>>
>> > If we upgrade that PC to use Windows 2000 Server Standard, will that
>> > allow more than 10 connections? Can such a PC sit on the same network
>> > (in a workgroup, not the domain) as 2003 SBS or will the SBS choke?
>> > I'd also be interested in any other solutions for the connection limit
>> > which don't require an expensive upgrade.
>>
>> > Thanks,
>> > Iain
>
> Can you explain 'member server of domain' - I was under the impression
> that with an SBS server, there could be no other servers on the
> domain. There's no great desire to keep the workgroup, other than as
> a simple security measure, though we are using all our current
> allotment of domain CALs .
>
> Iain
>

No. If you wish you can have 700 thousand additional DC's in an SBS domain.

Yes, SBS must be 'at the root of the forest'. What this really means is:
SBS must be in a single AD Domain and Forest. As holder of all FSMO roles
SBS will block any attempt to create a Child Domain or establish a trust to
another domain or forest.

Even the old '1st server' terminology was incorrect. SBS could, and still
can, be added to an existing AD. In doing so you must move the FSMO roles to
SBS but the only way of doing so is having SBS and an additional DC, proof
that no such restriction exists:-)

If it is not specifically stated as an SBS limitation, you can do it.

Must hold all FSMO roles.
Neither a Parent nor a Child.
No Trusts.
can't think of the others ATM.

<snip>
> a simple security measure, though we are using all our current
> allotment of domain CALs .

No, there can be other servers - just not another domain controller
(only SBS can be the 'root of a forest').

--
Duncan.

I haven't been posting much so thought I might artificially increase m'
count ;-)

really, the parent/child/AD/forest is ALL explained by the simple statement
that 'SBS must hold all FSMO roles in the AD'.

To establesh a child domain there must be a separate FSMO role holder in
that domain controlling domain level FSMO's. SBS won't allow you to do it.
To establish a trust to another AD or Domain you again must talk to another
FSMO role holder. SBS won't do it.



"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> No. If you wish you can have 700 thousand additional DC's in an SBS
> domain.
>
> Yes, SBS must be 'at the root of the forest'. What this really means is:
> SBS must be in a single AD Domain and Forest. As holder of all FSMO roles
> SBS will block any attempt to create a Child Domain or establish a trust
> to another domain or forest.
>
> Even the old '1st server' terminology was incorrect. SBS could, and still
> can, be added to an existing AD. In doing so you must move the FSMO roles
> to SBS but the only way of doing so is having SBS and an additional DC,
> proof that no such restriction exists:-)
>
> If it is not specifically stated as an SBS limitation, you can do it.
>
> Must hold all FSMO roles.
> Neither a Parent nor a Child.
> No Trusts.
> can't think of the others ATM.
>
> <snip>
>> a simple security measure, though we are using all our current
>> allotment of domain CALs .
>
> No, there can be other servers - just not another domain controller
> (only SBS can be the 'root of a forest').
>
> --
> Duncan.
>

Duncan you also have been hit by the common misconception that no additional
DCs are allowed. In fact they are. Read SGs response from a couple of hours
ago.

"Duncan McC" <> wrote in message
news: ...
In article <1fadf65f-6e7a-4d33-934e-415e949cfd44
@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, says...
> On Oct 28, 12:25 pm, "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <n...@your.nellie> wrote:
> > Yes, but it will be more expensive to implememnt a standalone server
> > (workgroup mode) than to implement a member server of the SBS domain. (I
> > expect)
> >
> > What is the motivation for maintaining the workgroup?
> >
> > "Iain King" <iaink...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:b08a5ac2-9914-4c26-a0f9-...
> >
> > > We currently have a Windows 2003 SBS server running a domain for
> > > management, alongside a workgroup of computers used for scanning. The
> > > scanning software is licensed and each client needs to ping a host
> > > computer periodically to continue operating. We are currently running
> > > the scan host software on a Windows 2000 Pro PC, but are running into
> > > problems connecting all the available clients, and from what I can
> > > determine this is due to the 10 network connection limit imposed by
> > > non-server versions of Win2K. There is a reason we can't run the host
> > > software on the SBS PC.
> >
> > > If we upgrade that PC to use Windows 2000 Server Standard, will that
> > > allow more than 10 connections? Can such a PC sit on the same network
> > > (in a workgroup, not the domain) as 2003 SBS or will the SBS choke?
> > > I'd also be interested in any other solutions for the connection limit
> > > which don't require an expensive upgrade.
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Iain
>
> Can you explain 'member server of domain' - I was under the impression
> that with an SBS server, there could be no other servers on the
> domain. There's no great desire to keep the workgroup, other than as
> a simple security measure, though we are using all our current
> allotment of domain CALs .

No, there can be other servers - just not another domain controller
(only SBS can be the 'root of a forest').

--
Duncan.

I fully appreciate it's possible - however, it is (AFAIK to-date) not
allowed according to the SBS licence agreement.

I'd appreciate any clarification - as that's what I was told during an
*MS* training course!

--
Duncan.

In article <#>,
says...
> No. If you wish you can have 700 thousand additional DC's in an SBS domain.
>
> Yes, SBS must be 'at the root of the forest'. What this really means is:
> SBS must be in a single AD Domain and Forest. As holder of all FSMO roles
> SBS will block any attempt to create a Child Domain or establish a trust to
> another domain or forest.
>
> Even the old '1st server' terminology was incorrect. SBS could, and still
> can, be added to an existing AD. In doing so you must move the FSMO roles to
> SBS but the only way of doing so is having SBS and an additional DC, proof
> that no such restriction exists:-)
>
> If it is not specifically stated as an SBS limitation, you can do it.
>
> Must hold all FSMO roles.
> Neither a Parent nor a Child.
> No Trusts.
> can't think of the others ATM.
>
> <snip>
> > a simple security measure, though we are using all our current
> > allotment of domain CALs .
>
> No, there can be other servers - just not another domain controller
> (only SBS can be the 'root of a forest').
>
>

In article <>,
says...
> I fully appreciate it's possible - however, it is (AFAIK to-date) not
> allowed according to the SBS licence agreement.
>
> I'd appreciate any clarification - as that's what I was told during an
> *MS* training course!

I should further add that we were told that it is allowed, for the
purposes of transisioning only.

--
Duncan.

basically, poppycock. Don't care where you heard it, your interpretation of
what you heard is incorrect.

SBS licensing not only allows the use of additional servers but encourages
it by covering access to these servers via your SBS CAL.

SBS03 R2 'Expanded CAL rights' also include access to additional Exchange
servers in the SBS domain.

There has never (SBS 4.0/4.5/2000/2003/2008) been any restriction on the
number of DCs nor Member Servers. At different times the licensing for
access to such servers has changed.

"Duncan McC" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> In article <>,
> says...
>> I fully appreciate it's possible - however, it is (AFAIK to-date) not
>> allowed according to the SBS licence agreement.
>>
>> I'd appreciate any clarification - as that's what I was told during an
>> *MS* training course!
>
> I should further add that we were told that it is allowed, for the
> purposes of transisioning only.
>
> --
> Duncan.