 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
MS Access Forum / Multiuser / Networking / April 2005Is a Primary Domain controller required?
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? 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 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, 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? 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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? 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 > Immanuel, > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > 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? >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 >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 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.