Re: Changing to terminal server
- From: "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" <lanwench@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 15:20:30 -0500
In news:2471FF45-C0BB-4B76-996A-1BC9F835FEB4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
NL <NL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
> Yes, everything is running under one server: 10 users connecting
> through TS; squl, exchange server, office apps, internet. If we get
> a filtering e-mail program, junk e-mail shouldn't be a problem,
> correct?
>
That isn't answering my question exactly...SQL server should *not* be
running on your TS box.
Re spam - there are plenty of options to control spam, both in-house and via
managed services (such as www.postini.com)
> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> In news:3D4AABF3-A8B1-49E9-BC9D-081932001626@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>> NL <NL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
>>> Will be getting new server only for TS. The programs that we run
>>> are SqL database, quickbooks, microsoft office, internet, etc.
>>> Somebody suggested it because it will avoid goiing through every
>>> workstation and updating it; it will save work time. I want to
>>> make sure it's a good change.
>>
>> Yes, it can be great for this reason (and you can more easily secure
>> things, and can buy cheap & cheerful workstation hardware and leave
>> them bare bones).
>>
>> Note that Outlook users in TS can't use cached mode, so your junkmail
>> filtering will not work as it does usually - and if you're using
>> QB2006, you may wish to read through this group as people have
>> reported errors with it.
>>
>> So your SQL server is running on SBS, right?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In news:BE92A1A5-FBDE-44FD-98F9-D93F0D9B396B@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>>>> NL <NL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
>>>>> Our nonprofit company is planning to change our current method of
>>>>> connecting to the server so everybody connects through Terminal
>>>>> Services, about 50 users. Can you tell me if this is a good
>>>>> change, is it worth it the change, or should we stay the way we
>>>>> are now. Winows Small Bus. server 2000.
>>>>>
>>>>> thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Terminal Services is great - but you will need dedicated server
>>>> hardware and W2003 Server for it, as well as TS CALs....you can't
>>>> run it on SBS.
>>>>
>>>> Depending on usage, you may want more than one TS box. It has to be
>>>> very robust hardware, note - what will your users be running?
>>>> What's the reason for this proposed change? It's hard to tell you
>>>> whether this is a good plan when we don't have much info to go on,
>>>> including whatever management's issues are with the existing
>>>> config (whatever that is).
.
- References:
- Re: Changing to terminal server
- From: Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
- Re: Changing to terminal server
- From: Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
- Re: Changing to terminal server
- Prev by Date: Re: New Dell Server needs SBS2003 Reinstall-Partition question
- Next by Date: Re: Internet Access Sparatic
- Previous by thread: Re: Changing to terminal server
- Next by thread: Re: Changing to terminal server
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
