Why setup two servers with same name
- From: "allanc" <allan.for.g.groups@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Feb 2007 13:41:02 -0800
We did not setup the following and are trying to resolve some issues.
One of my clients has a SBS 4.5a server (192.168.1.106) and a new SBS
2003 (192.168.1.101) server.
Since they have some XP Home workstations, a domain has not been
created.
On a XP PRO computer, the new server *does not* appear in the
Microsoft Windows Network but other workstations and the old server do
appear.
The only way that I can map a drive to the new server is to right
click on 'My Network Places', click on 'Search for Computers' and then
search for 192.168.1.101.
Is this normal?
The mapping that I need to do is for a SQL application. I have been
reading that SQL 2000 (which we must use) can have issues under
certain circumstances when mapping to an IP address (as opposed to a
server name). This is one of my concerns.
The other concern that I have is that generally the individual who
installed and configured the new server is incompetent and somewhat
dishonest. I am wondering if he is somehow circumventing licensing
regulations.
Thank you in advance.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why setup two servers with same name
- From: Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
- Re: Why setup two servers with same name
- Prev by Date: Re: Offline files/folders synchronisation problem
- Next by Date: Re: Setup Mac OSX access to shared files on SBS2003 server
- Previous by thread: Re: Is this possible, if so how?!
- Next by thread: Re: Why setup two servers with same name
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading