Slashdot Mirror
Dealing with Directory Dilemmas?
Bardaris asks: "In my work environment, I maintain a large number of Novell, and Windows servers. Although Novell is the dominant OS, vendor applications are increasingly making the change from Novell based apps, to single NT4/Win 2k servers. This has put a strain on my PDC. Currently the MS boxes are outnumbering my Novell 30 to 22, with more Win 2k servers in the coming months, as each application vendor has found it cheaper to dictate a sole Win server for their app, rather than sharing nicely on Novell.
Now I've been tasked with assessing what to do with the Windows environment. My preference leans to eDirectory and dirXML to contain and maintain the Microsoft proliferation, but what of my NT4 PDC. Should I upgrade to Active Directory (if so, how)? Leave it as is until the last possible moment, whatever that may be? Is there a better way? I highly doubt I can sell a Linux/Samba solution, given the current state of the server environment and political climate here in my company, so that's not one of my options. I'm wondering if other Slashdot readers have ran across similar problems and how they tackled this issue."
It is not that big a deal, buy a book. Get on it.
Neck_of_the_Woods
#/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
Clearly stay on eDirectory. You will eventually have Linux servers in the house, and that's a great way to integrate everything you are running.
You probably want to upgrade your NT boxes, if for no other reason then updates/security issues. If you can't bring them to NetWare or Linux, I'd consolidate as many as possible on Windows 2003 and plan your migration to other platforms.
I would also recommend calling your local Novell office for a personalized look at your situation and some better price offerings.
Good luck! Should be fun, if nothing else...!
-m
http://www.invisik.com
eDirectory and dirXML are definitely the way to go unless you plan to eliminate Novell form your network. As for the upgrade path to Active Directory? Microsoft's Active Directory has already decided that for you.
If you plan to continue using the same NT domains then you must upgrade your PDC to AD first. You will then be on Active Directory but, your BDCs will still work. You can then upgrade you BDCs at your leisure but, you shouldn't plan on taking a year to upgrade them either. There are issues that will arise over time that would be more easily handled if your BDCs were Active Directory DCs.
Luckily for you, Novell has seen the Linux light even if your employer or software vendors have not. I would recommend that you press your vendors for Linux versions of their applications and make lots of noise about switching to a vendor that does support Linux, even if it is only a bluff. Over time they too will start offering support for the Linux platform too. Novell, eDirectory and Linux. Now that's a nice network.
You've got One NT4 domain, 52 servers, and out of those, 22 of them are Novell, but most of those are going away, right?
Since you've already got an NT4 domain, your easiest bet is to upgrade to Win2k/2k3 AD. If you've got s single domain, and no trusts, this is simple. if you upgrade your NT4 PDC to Win2k/2k3, it will automatically promote it to an AD DC. Now, it's important to learn something about AD, and you really should have multiple DCs for fault tolerance and load balancing, but this is all pretty easy. Microsoft even has free guides to help you out.
Stay with Novell.... basically because Active Driectory is a one-platform one-trick pony.
Active Driectory is like having a diesel car when everybody else has regular cars - you're stuck buying your diesel from the truck stop, where everybody else can fuel up where they'd like.
Plus AD sucks - it's getting better, in the same way Windows XP is beter than Windows 98 - it just sucks a little bit less.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
"Dump Novell, consolidate to Active Directory and W2K/2K3, and get on with your life."
Do you think they'd be running multiple OS's if they could consilidate? Man I hate answers like this.
"Derp de derp."
It's funny that everywhere I have seen someone make the move from Novell to Windows 2000/2003 they replace one Netware server with three Windows servers. And, they still have twice as many problems as they did before they switched. The solution is always the same, add more Windows boxes.
Not for me thanks, I've had enough.
Novell eDirectory and the DirXML ADS driver will facilitate integration with the x.500 standards compliant (for once) ADS 2k3/MS-LDAP.
If you need an interim solution, talk to Interix. They can make ADS talk to anything.
is of course to march into your manager's office when he's not there, get your swingline stapler back, and burn the place to the ground.
hmmmm?
still running on Novell? I thought that was gone a long time ago. I think the last time I touched a Novell server was in 1994.
Cyberbite Networks - Web Hosting, Dedicated Servers & Colocati
How I got to this state of events... Most of my major applications were running on a single Novell server for years. I had moved from v3.12 to 5.1 without incident. Suddenly in the past two years all the vendors decided a stand alone windows server was the way to go and et voila, instant Windows server farm. Every vendor wants their own server for their app, and the powers that be, do not want to change this scenario. Most of the crap I have on the floor is vendor drive. i.e Here's our product make it fit in your environment. I am not in a position to break this habit, nor can I just go out and replace everything with Samba. Kind of hard to do when most apps are SQL driven or TS apps and a clean break isn't possible.
Yeah, but this state of affairs still doesn't mean instant server farm...You just need to plan it a bit better.
Lots of SQL driven apps - put in one big-ass SQL box. That box is redundant power/fans/array/network - everything. Then the individual apps all get a DL360 or equivalent.
Same goes for your TS applications.
If you really want to have some fun, one big-ass box for SQL, and another big-ass box with VM-Ware hosts to take the place of all those DL360s. You don't need a server-farm (in fact you'd rather not, because controlling climate, power becomes expensive), you just need to plan it.
I've got to believe that you can sell it if you use the fact that NOVELL is become a large Linux play. Why not use NOVELLs solution running under Linux initially??????
Create a test case for Samba after that is successful, then say good bye to MS.
I've got to think that if NOVELL is already in use,then NOVELL as a replacement answer even though it is on top of Linux has to be politically possible??
Have you compiled your kernel today??
having just setup kerberos as my authentication gateway, and ldap running on top of that, yes, i agree.
it took about a month of on and off fiddling to get ldap and kerberos up, then get ldap running on top of kerberos.
and then i realized i couldnt do a simple bind. and i spent another month getting saslauthd working (and patching fixing and modifying everything i'd done before to make it right).
ldap + kerberos is a very in depth detail. but its the right way to go. i was suprised microsoft actually followed the right path and spun AD from ldap + kerberos, even if AD has a ton of custom cruft duct taped and hot glued on the end.
kerberos is moderately interoperable. its just the AD extentions which are extra-double-plus proprietary. i cant see samba jumping on the ldap + kerberos bandwidth.
Try that in the "real world" and you will find that your application vendors will not support that kind of configuration. You also find that the performance of many of these apps are so freekin bad that they NEED their own box. Case in point: Intraspect (now Vignette BCS.)
specifically, i'd check monster.com - so i could get a new job. and in my exit interview, i'd state that my primary reason for leaving was because people were choosing technology based on uninformed politics instead of a decent understanding of technology.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Have done it in the real world, and have found that reminding the vendor who the customer is normally helps.
That Intraspect webpage has all the right buzzwords, but I've never heard of it. For content management I always used Documentum, and for intranet stuff, a decent web programmer with templates.
Point taken...some app vendors do try and insist on devoted box for their application, but competition is a good thing. "You know...I could go with company y instead "
And I LOATHE SQL patching...you can service pack 10 individual SQL installations...I'll do one thank you very much...
each application vendor has found it cheaper to dictate a sole Win server for their app
How nice. I recall a rather elderly Sun SPARCserver 2000 that handled multiple NFS mounts for a whole network using software and hardware RAID (including serving user home directories), was a web server, a license server, an Oracle development server, ran sshd, and some other stuff I can't remember. It had six 60MHz SuperSPARC CPUs. Granted, it wasn't like riding greased lightning, but it got the job done. Oh, and there was that Ultra 1 workstation that scanned and routed every e-mail entering and leaving the network.
30 Windows servers? I'm glad I'm not the guy's supervisor responsible for signing off on so many superfluous purchase orders (boy, he must be dense).
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
The upcoming Microsoft Virtual Server might ease some of your machine multiplication woes...
r tu alserver/evaluation/vmnews.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/vi
So long as companies like yours accept it when venders each demand to run on their own windows server, using all the resources instead of tight code, venders will deliver. Put some squeeze on venders, when evaluating versions make sure you count how much hardware you will need, and how compatable they are with what you have. They will get the message if you put pressure on them.
Don't say your not big enough, because nobody is big enough alone. Start doing it yourself, and get everyone else you know to do the same.
I priced it out for the small business I was consulting for. A single "new" Win2K3 server (just over $12K) and OS (over $15K) with a 2TB Raid ($12K) came in at $39000,
A Clustered pair of Xserver Dual CPU G5s ($4K eack X 2) with a 2TB Xraid ($8.5K) WITH THE OS was arround $19K. The OS was the huge money factor, 150 user ver of WIN 2K3 Enterprise server was like $15K All by itself, where the UNLIMITED (yes without limits on users) version of Mac OSX Panther Server was $1K with an Additional $1K Upgrade service guarentee for 3 years (Any new os is free for 3 years).
MacOSX, because making *NIX better is a lot better than waiting for Micro$loth to fix Windows
This is NOT flamebait, just because someone is advocating a microsoft solution.
Windows Server has several tools that assist in integrating NDS and Microsoft's AD as well as services for Unix.
Furthermore Windows can give you a single sign-on to all of the Novell and Windows resources. With Samba some services can also tie in with the Windows authentication.
Linux clients can use Samba to connect to both the Windows and Novell resources if configured correctly.
Although it may not be feasible to dump all the NOS's that you are using, only Windows has the functionality to integrate them as tightly as possible. Either way you look at it, NT4.0 is grossly unsupported, and the presence of such a NOS in your environment suggests there are more problems than just the consolidation issues you mention. Windows NT4.0, released in 1996, is an 8 year old OS. I'm sure no linux advocates would suggest sticking with such an old kernel.
Having said that, I find the ignorance of the linux supporting community on slashdot (moderators no less) astounding. Most Microsoft shops aren't nearly so derisive of open source solutions. I'm sure if some of these "open source" advocates looked around they'd find a much wider world than just what can and can't be done with Linux.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
I agree that that is an unhealthy situation, but blindly recommending Linux for whatever problem someone poses is not the solution to that problem. The same counts for any other-than-Microsoft solution. Understand that sometimes a Microsoft solution is not a bad choice!
Now to the problem. The first thing you should do is investigate support options for Windows NT, and the possibility of a migration towards Windows Server 2003. While doing so, interoperability with Novell should be high on your priority list.
Also understand that there is a profound difference between NT4 domains, a Windows 2000 AD domain and a Windows Server 2003 AD domain. Where Microsoft pitched Windows 2000 AD as an enerprise directory, they have now seen their mistakes in doing so, implemented major improvements to the AD and no0w they are selling it as a systems management directory. In other words, if you want an enterprise directory, stick with Novell. If you don't want or need that, go with Windows. Take into account the fact that once you go the full Windows AD route, you are running one or more Kerberos realms, with all the associated problems. Also understand that a proper DNS infrastructure is mandatory for a healthy AD domain. The third point: AD replication. Before implementing anything, make detailed calculations about the amount of directory replication traffic if you run multiple domains (hint: you don't want to, but might need to). This last point doubles in importance when replicating to remote sites over slow wan links.