|
Home > Archive > MS Access Multiuser > April 2005 > Is a Primary Domain controller required?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Is a Primary Domain controller required?
|
|
| David Howlett 2005-04-13, 8:24 pm |
| We are switching a single user Microsoft Access 2000 application to
multiuser. The client is currently using a 4 user peer-to-peer network. We
purchased a Windows 2000 file server and are in the process of configuring
it.
I have not yet designated the file server as a primary domain controller.
Since the 4 user peer-to-peer network has every workstation currently
configured as a simple 'Workgroup' I was hoping to just plug in the file
server and go.
Now, the person who is configuring our router is requesting we have DNS on
the file server. In order to have DNS we would have to use Active Directory
or (in other words) configure this server as the primary domain controller.
Our sole purpose in obtaining the Windows 2000 file server is to run the
multiuser Access application with the backend stored on a server. We are not
web hosting and the Internet connection is DSL (dynamic addresses). What's
the easiest? I would like to tell him no, we are not configuring the server
as the PDC, just configure the router according. But are there any issues
with Access running with no PDC?
This installation will be many miles away from my office. I don't want
problems. If Access works better with a PDC then I'll do it. Thoughts?
| |
| Immanuel Sibero 2005-04-13, 8:24 pm |
|
Hi David,
Access makes no difference between PDC or peer-to-peer (workgroup) status of
a Windows 2000 server. It simply needs a file share. All users should have
*full access* privileges to the file share. The server could even be a
Netware which has no clue about Microsoft's concept of PDC, workgroup,
domain, active directory, etc, etc.
As far as the Win2000 server configuration, if you are only responsible for
making sure that your Access application works, then you're in the clear
meaning you should not be the one making decisions about the use of DNS,
Active directory, PDC etc. Access will work with or without them.
HTH,
Immanuel Sibero
"David Howlett" <dhowlett@laoh.ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:ejUtnqFQFHA.3288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> We are switching a single user Microsoft Access 2000 application to
> multiuser. The client is currently using a 4 user peer-to-peer network. We
> purchased a Windows 2000 file server and are in the process of configuring
> it.
>
> I have not yet designated the file server as a primary domain controller.
> Since the 4 user peer-to-peer network has every workstation currently
> configured as a simple 'Workgroup' I was hoping to just plug in the file
> server and go.
>
> Now, the person who is configuring our router is requesting we have DNS on
> the file server. In order to have DNS we would have to use Active
Directory
> or (in other words) configure this server as the primary domain
controller.
> Our sole purpose in obtaining the Windows 2000 file server is to run the
> multiuser Access application with the backend stored on a server. We are
not
> web hosting and the Internet connection is DSL (dynamic addresses). What's
> the easiest? I would like to tell him no, we are not configuring the
server
> as the PDC, just configure the router according. But are there any issues
> with Access running with no PDC?
>
> This installation will be many miles away from my office. I don't want
> problems. If Access works better with a PDC then I'll do it. Thoughts?
>
>
>
| |
| David Howlett 2005-04-13, 8:24 pm |
| Immanuel,
Thanks for the reply.
A couple of weeks ago I posted a question about not using a file server at
all. An MVP wrote back that in straight peer-to-peer environment, the OS
does not work well (something about limits on the number of locks). This is
what convinced me I needed a server in the first place.
Just double checking here, having the backend on a Windows 2000 file server
is preferable over straight peer-to-peer but it is not neccisary to
configure it as a PDC?
"Immanuel Sibero" <goahead@getlost.com> wrote in message
news:egcMcaGQFHA.688@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Hi David,
Access makes no difference between PDC or peer-to-peer (workgroup) status of
a Windows 2000 server. It simply needs a file share. All users should have
*full access* privileges to the file share. The server could even be a
Netware which has no clue about Microsoft's concept of PDC, workgroup,
domain, active directory, etc, etc.
As far as the Win2000 server configuration, if you are only responsible for
making sure that your Access application works, then you're in the clear
meaning you should not be the one making decisions about the use of DNS,
Active directory, PDC etc. Access will work with or without them.
HTH,
Immanuel Sibero
"David Howlett" <dhowlett@laoh.ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:ejUtnqFQFHA.3288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> We are switching a single user Microsoft Access 2000 application to
> multiuser. The client is currently using a 4 user peer-to-peer network. We
> purchased a Windows 2000 file server and are in the process of configuring
> it.
>
> I have not yet designated the file server as a primary domain controller.
> Since the 4 user peer-to-peer network has every workstation currently
> configured as a simple 'Workgroup' I was hoping to just plug in the file
> server and go.
>
> Now, the person who is configuring our router is requesting we have DNS on
> the file server. In order to have DNS we would have to use Active
Directory
> or (in other words) configure this server as the primary domain
controller.
> Our sole purpose in obtaining the Windows 2000 file server is to run the
> multiuser Access application with the backend stored on a server. We are
not
> web hosting and the Internet connection is DSL (dynamic addresses). What's
> the easiest? I would l
ike to tell him no, we are not configuring the
server
> as the PDC, just configure the router according. But are there any issues
> with Access running with no PDC?
>
> This installation will be many miles away from my office. I don't want
> problems. If Access works better with a PDC then I'll do it. Thoughts?
>
>
>
| |
| Immanuel Sibero 2005-04-14, 3:25 am |
|
David,
I would say putting the backend on a Win2000 server is preferable. After all
it is a server. What I would avoid is putting the backend on a peer-to-peer
workstation and that same workstation being used to run other user
applications. Workstations are optimized to run user applications while
servers are optimized to, well, serve files.
And no, it's not necessary to configure the server as a domain controller.
Strictly speaking, windows based networks are peer-to-peer whether or not
you have a Win2000 server in the mix and whether the Win2000 server is
configured as a PDC or just another peer (i.e. a workgroup server). When you
configure the Win2000 server to be a PDC, you're essentially promoting a
peer to be the one that performs and organizes centralized network functions
such as user authentications, group policies, printer sharing, etc.
Deploying an Access application has little to do with these network
functions. In other words, you can still deploy an Access app without these
network functions.
> all. An MVP wrote back that in straight peer-to-peer environment, the OS
> does not work well (something about limits on the number of locks).
The limit here is not the fact that it is a peer-to-peer environment. The
limit is the OS of the peer (i.e. XP Pro, Win2000 Pro, Win98, etc). I dont
know exactly how many, but there is a limit of the number of user
connections to these OS's.
HTH,
Immanuel Sibero
"David Howlett" <dhowlett@laoh.ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:ea444AHQFHA.2580@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Immanuel,
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> A couple of weeks ago I posted a question about not using a file server at
> all. An MVP wrote back that in straight peer-to-peer environment, the OS
> does not work well (something about limits on the number of locks). This
is
> what convinced me I needed a server in the first place.
>
> Just double checking here, having the backend on a Windows 2000 file
server
> is preferable over straight peer-to-peer but it is not neccisary to
> configure it as a PDC?
>
>
>
>
>
> "Immanuel Sibero" <goahead@getlost.com> wrote in message
> news:egcMcaGQFHA.688@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
> Hi David,
>
> Access makes no difference between PDC or peer-to-peer (workgroup) status
of
> a Windows 2000 server. It simply needs a file share. All users should have
> *full access* privileges to the file share. The server could even be a
> Netware which has no clue about Microsoft's concept of PDC, workgroup,
> domain, active directory, etc, etc.
>
> As far as the Win2000 server configuration, if you are only responsible
for
> making sure that your Access application works, then you're in the clear
> meaning you should not be the one making decisions about the use of DNS,
> Active directory, PDC etc. Access will work with or without them.
>
>
> HTH,
> Immanuel Sibero
>
> "David Howlett" <dhowlett@laoh.ucla.edu> wrote in message
> news:ejUtnqFQFHA.3288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
We[color=darkred]
configuring[color=da
rkred]
controller.[color=darkred]
on[color=darkred]
> Directory
> controller.
> not
What's[color=darkred
]
>
> ike to tell him no, we are not configuring the
> server
issues[color=darkred
]
>
>
| |
| Tony Toews 2005-04-19, 11:24 am |
| "David Howlett" <dhowlett@laoh.ucla.edu> wrote:
>A couple of weeks ago I posted a question about not using a file server at
>all. An MVP wrote back that in straight peer-to-peer environment, the OS
>does not work well (something about limits on the number of locks). This is
>what convinced me I needed a server in the first place.
That was likely me.
>Just double checking here, having the backend on a Windows 2000 file server
>is preferable over straight peer-to-peer but it is not neccisary to
>configure it as a PDC?
Using work group security is just fine.
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
| |
| Tony Toews 2005-04-19, 11:24 am |
| "David Howlett" <dhowlett@laoh.ucla.edu> wrote:
>Now, the person who is configuring our router is requesting we have DNS on
>the file server.
Who cares? Sharing a DNS system will likely only save a few
kilobytes per day in Internet traffic. Peanuts I'd say.
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
|
|
|
|
|