Server-Centric vs. Distributed

[Anonymous]

We are looking to upgrade to an entirely OS X network in 6-12 months.

Currently we are running almost all OS9 systems for servers and clients. Users use the ASIP server to transfer and store files, but they also have some files on the own hard drive. We use Retrospect Workgroup to backup all servers and all clients every night. On the client computers, I have it set to backup e-mail as well as a “Backup Folder” where they are supposed to keep their critical files.

As we move to Mac OS X Server & Clients, should I move to a more Server-Centric strategy in which no files are kept on the client computers and everything is stored on the file server, mail server, etc.? Is this even possible in OS X? This would eliminate the need to backup every client computer and allow me to just worry about the servers. Is anyone doing this successfully?

Thanks for your thoughts.

[Camelot]

I wouldn’t go as far as having *everything* on the server (although that is possible with NetBoot), but I would store users’ home directories on the server, using automount to automatically mount each user’s home directory as they log on.

That way you get centralized storage of user content, making it easy to back up on the server.

I’d maintain applications on each machine, though.

[Cabbage]

Use Networked Home Directories for the Users. Their home folder will be what their “Backup Folder” used to be. You just need to back up the /Users on the server now and you’ve backed up everyone.

Start with a clean disc image of the latest os. Load that on each hard drive using NetRestore.

Keep all apps on each persons mac. Use Radmind to update the software on all the Macs.

[Anonymous]

What about bandwidth demands? Will moving to a strategy such as you’ve described drag our network down? Our switches as well as our hubs are all 10/100. We’re currently planning on eMacs for the clients.

[Cabbage]

It depends what kind of files they are going to be transferring back and forth. Their hole

I work for a printing company and we have 100 and Gigabit. For the people using FileMaker/MS Office/Email/Web Stuff there isn’t a problem. For the people retouching photos they have Gigabit. They are usually working on images in Photoshop that are over a 1.5 gigs. Average file is about 700mb.

[Anonymous]

Apps:

Most Users:
MSOffice v.X (including Entourage)
4D Client 6.8 (60 users connecting to a large customized database)
Filemaker 5.5 (Server/Client)
Now Up-To-Date 4.2.5 (Server/Clients)

There are also about 15 Quark & Acrobat PDF users and only 2 or 3 Photoshop users. But the files are pretty small. This isn’t alot of high-res stuff (I worked in the pre-press field myself for 10 years). Last I knew, it wasn’t a good idea to load Quark files over a network, but rather, copy it to your hard drive and work with it and the supporting files locally. Maybe that was only a problem with AppleshareIP servers though.

Thanks for your feedback.

[sketchy]

I would advise you not to use network home directories when using Entourage, it doesn’t play well.

I rolled out network home direectories for my users and it was a disaster. The Entourage database appears incredibly fragile and any LAN outage while a user was sending/receiving seems to cause severe corruption. I rolled back and have ditched the idea.

Have 4D, Filemaker and Now-Up-To-Date all running fine but then they are designed to operate over networks 😉

[Anonymous]

Not Late At All…Thanks for the reply.

We’re rolling out all new eMac clients in about a month and upgrading our servers. We’re scrapping network home directories for exactly the reasons you’ve described. Backup will be more difficult but if the server is down or for some weird reason is unreachable, then at least people can continue working on other applications.

Note: We wanted to upgrade our 4D server to a G5, but SCSI adapter compatibility (Adaptec) with the PCI/PCI-X slots is suspect. We may delay until this issue is resolved considering our 4D server is connected to a SCSI RAID box.

Thanks again.

[quote:be716a9579=”sketchy”]I would advise you not to use network home directories when using Entourage, it doesn’t play well.

I rolled out network home direectories for my users and it was a disaster. The Entourage database appears incredibly fragile and any LAN outage while a user was sending/receiving seems to cause severe corruption. I rolled back and have ditched the idea.

Have 4D, Filemaker and Now-Up-To-Date all running fine but then they are designed to operate over networks ;)[/quote:be716a9579]

[Cabbage]

>>I would advise you not to use network home directories when using Entourage, it doesn’t play well.

I have a few users that say Entourage is way too slow over the network. 90% of my users use Apple Mail and it works great.

Personally my ~/Library/Mail folder is 500mb with 6 email accounts, 60 mailboxes and 1,500+ message. I’ve never have any problems.

[Anonymous]

OK, it’s been about a year and a half since the last post on this discussion. Are there admins out there running networks using Network Home Directories successfully/efficiently?

We have 80 users on our distributed network and a year ago I setup a Master eMac with all 80 accounts and cloned it to the other computers. All well and good until a new employee is added and they can only log into their own account on one computer. Plus other modifications to an account on one computer need to be carried over to the other 80 or I end up getting alot of phone calls.

I think a Server-centric configuration makes alot of sense but needing to switch to Apple Mail is preventing me from pulling the trigger. (Note: several of our users have Entourage databases over 2GB in size and growing).

Recent building repairs to specific offices have displaced many users into other offices temporarily where their email, server connections, and Dock icons are not configured. A Server-centric network would have prevented this.

Are you using Network Home Directories? If so, what email app are you using? What downsides have you experienced with NHDs?

[Author]

Posts