Need a suggestion in designing Windows 2000 Active directory

Discussion in 'Active Directory' started by Attention, Aug 14, 2004.

  1. Attention

    Attention Guest

    We have two offices seperated by 2 MBPS leased (Private link). Each office
    with approximatly 250 users each one doing the same bussiness, and nearly 150
    users work in either of the office at any time.

    I need suggestions in designining Windows 2000 Active directly integrating
    with Exchange 200o properly and profiles wokring properly irrespective of the
    users working in any location.


    Suggestions are most welcome.
     
    Attention, Aug 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Attention

    Al Mulnick Guest

    Probably start by getting more information on the network link to figure out
    what available bandwidth is. I'd likely go from there to requirements and
    personnel.

    After that, I'd worry about budget and operational related details.
     
    Al Mulnick, Aug 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Attention,

    I might suggest that you implement two Sites ( created in Active Directory
    Sites and Services where you create Sites and then create Subnets and
    associate those Subnets with the appropriate Site ). I would also suggest
    that you create a Site-to-Site VPN between the two Sites. The SonicWall and
    Cisco Firewalls can do this nicely as can any number of other Firewall
    Devices out there on the market.

    I would suggest that you have at least two Domain Controllers in each Site
    and that you consider having an Exchange Server ( running on a Windows 2000
    Member Server - not on one of the Domain Controllers ) in each Site. This
    adds a little more to the cost obviously. If things are tight financially
    then I might have only one Exchange Server located in the Site that makes
    the most sense to you.

    I would suggest that you have a File Server in each Site and that the 250
    users from SiteA have their folders located on the Server in SiteA and that
    the 250 users in SiteB have their folders located on the Server in SiteB.

    This is a pretty vanilla suggestion. We would need more information, as Al
    stated.

    Are you saying that it is possible that 75 of the users from SiteA would be
    working in SiteB ( is this for a day or for an extended period of time ) and
    vice-versa? What do these users do? Are they using big Excel Spreadsheets
    or Access databases or PowerPoint Presentations ( a big killer! ) or are
    they simply using e-mail and smaller Word Documents? I can speak from
    experience that when the users are located in one Site and their files and
    folders are located on a server in another Site things are slow - especially
    with the PowerPoint Presentations and the Excel Spreadsheets. Some of our
    accounting people where I used to work were sharing folders with users
    located in another Site ( there was a dedicated T1 between the two Sites )
    and things took their sweet time!

    This could take some user-education as well. They need to understand that
    going from one Site to the other is going to be a whole lot slower than when
    they are doing things on their local LAN.....

    HTH,

    Cary
     
    Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP], Aug 15, 2004
    #3
  4. Hello Phillip,

    Thank you for catching the (private link) part. I did indeed miss that so
    the Site-to-Site VPN suggestion is really not necessary.

    I am not sure that I think that four Domain Controllers for 500 users is
    overkill in a two-site situation. I am trying to follow Best Practices. If
    the second Domain Controller is also the File Server in both Sites then I
    think that we have a good solution. But, I think that we should leave that
    decision to Attention. You can get a good older Server from Compaq ( yes, I
    know that they are now HP.... ) for about $1000 from a couple of suppliers
    that I know ( and have used without a problem ). And that includes the RAM
    and the HDDs and the Raid Controller.

    Anyway, your points are well taken. Like I stated in my response my
    suggestions were pretty vanilla. Essentially a starting point to be
    discussed here in this forum and ultimately decided by Attention. With more
    information he/she can make the best decision possible given his/her
    specifics.

    Glad that you agree that two Exchange Servers is a good idea.

    Cary
     
    Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP], Aug 17, 2004
    #4
  5. Phil,

    I agree. This is the forum in which all of the possibilities should be
    presented and then let the poster decide what is best for his/her
    environment. It is always a good thing to have a bit of a different
    opinion. More good things come from this type of discussion.

    I also like to reduce the number of servers in use -BUT- still like to have
    some Servers dedicated to that one task ( read: Exchange, Terminal Services,
    etc. ).

    Cary
     
    Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP], Aug 17, 2004
    #5
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.