_Networking Ques.: Is "Peer-to-Peer" Networking Possible Among Multiple Linux Standalone Machines?

_Networking Ques.: Is "Peer-to-Peer" Networking Possible Among Multiple Linux Standalone Machines?

Post by LScot » Sun, 21 Mar 1999 04:00:00



Gentlemen and Ladies:

        This message asks whether a "Peer-to-Peer" network, instead of a
client-server network, may be used between multiple, standalone, Linux
machines.  Our "QUESTIONS" follow the preliminary "BACKGROUND" information
provided with respect to the current design of the existing network that we
want to convert entirely into a "peer-to-peer" Linux-only network (if
possible and reasonably practical to do so).

BACKGROUND:     We would like to convert our computing entirely over to Linux
operating systems in all of our computers.  That is, we would like to have
Linux be the sole and only operating system used in our organization.
Thus, we have no plans at all for integrating any other O/S, such as
Windows or Macintosh, with or into this Linux network that we hope we can
accomplish.

        Historically, we have conducted our activities in our workgroup in a
so-called "peer-to-peer" network configuration that has the following
characteristics:

1.      There are four machines in our immediate group:

        a.      Three (3) standalone workstations; and

        b.      One file server that contains only an O/S and
                the data files with which the personnel at the
                three standalone machines perform their work.

2.      Each of the three standalone workstations contains
        the various programs and applications employed by
        the users at their respective standalone machines in
        accomplishing their work.

        Note:  Only programs and applications are kept on
        the hard drives of the three standalone machines; no
        data files at all are kept on the hard drives of the three
        standalone machines.

        Further:        Each of the respective users of the
        standalone machines is entirely free to use
        the applications and programs of his or her
        own choice in performing his or her own work.

        Thus, in varying degree, the three standalone
        machines each contains differing programs and
        applications fom the other standalone workstations.

3.      The file server contains no programs or applications
        whatsoever.  In other words, no programs are run
        from the file server by any of the standalone machines.

        However, in addition to being only a "file server,"
        the file server is the machine that

        a.      contains the printers for the entire network
                and actually handles for the entire network
                the print jobs that are sent to it from the
                three standalone machines; and

        b.      contains the Post Office for the email system
                used on the network.  The Post Office is actually
                remotely administered by one of the users on
                one of the three standalone machines.

4.      The following "resources" are shared around
        the network by all four machines:

        a.      All drives and directories (Or "folders") and
                files are read/write shared by all four
                machines;

        b.      The printers (located on the file server) are
                shared by all four machines;

        c.      One of the three standalone machines is a
                dial-in network server for the entire network
                and also acts as a faxmodem (fax) server for
                all of the machines in the network.

5.      No programs at all are shared as between any two or
        more computers in the network.

5.      The network uses thin ethernet coax cable that runs
        from  each machine to the next -- i.e., there is no
        "star" or "hub" involved.

Although at first blush this network may seem "too open" or lacking in the
security features of a "client-server" network arrangement, you may assume
that, among the persons who work in this network, security is not an issue.
 To the extent that security may be required from time to time, we simply
password the relevant directories or other resources so that they can be
used only by those who are working upon the particular project that needs
to be secured.

QUESTIONS:      Based upon the foregoing background information provided with
respect to our currently existing network, and since, to a person, we are
the barest of novices at Linux, we would be most appreciative if the more
knowledgeable and experienced members of the newsgroup could enlighten us
with respect to the questions we need to consider in making our transition
of our existing network to a Linux-only network:

1.      Can Linux be networked as a "Peer-to-Peer"
        network as described above?

        a.      If so, do the distributions of Linux come
                equipped to set up such a network or is
                some additional network application or
                program needed to effect the "Peer-to-Peer"
                network configuration that we want to create?

        b.      If not, what kind of network would we have
                to use?  Client-Server?  (client-server is simply
                overkill for us)

2.      Can Linux be used to accomplish the "sharing" of the
        resources as we have outlined the degree of "resource
        sharing" above?

        If so, is this a complicated matter to accomplish or is
        it a relatively simple matter such as is true in
        peer-to-peer networking in Windows for Workgroups
        and among Win95 machines that have been arranged
        in workgroups?

3.      Finally, in the event that we should find ourselves
        at some point merging or combining with another
        group that uses an O/S different from Linux (such
        as NT, Win95/98, Macintosh, or OS2):

        a.      Is it a complicated matter to "plug in" a Linux
                workgroup, such as ours would be, into a larger
                network that uses neither Linux nor Unix as
                the O/S for its network?

        b.      Is it a complicated matter to "plug in" a
                computer -- that uses an O/S other than
                Linux -- to a Linux workgroup such as the
                one we hope we can create?  (i.e., for
                example, would it be particulary difficult
                for an NT or for a Win95/98 machine to
                join us and use our network?).

        These two operations ("plug in" to someone else's
        network and remain peer-to-peer among ourselves
        or "plug in" someone else to our peer-to-peer
        network and have them now also be a peer-to-peer
        member of our workgroup) was, and has been,
        rather simple and easy to accomplish both under
        Windows for Workgroups and under Win95.  Are
        we in for some  wrenching "shocks" and "surprises"
        under Linux?  Or, will life just go on -- albeit under
        a different, and hopefully much more useful,
        operating       system?

4.      Finally, given what we would like to accomplish
        with our network configuration, is there a
        particular distribution of  Linux upon which we
        should be focusing?  SUSE? Caldera? RedHat?

        Sorry to send up such a long message, but we thought it would probably be
best to "lay it all out at once" and first find out if we are even on the
right track or whether we need to learn a whole new mindset with respect to
how we are going to have to get our work done under Linux?

        Any enlightenment, insights, suggestions, comments, or references to web
or hard copy resources with respect to our questions will be greatly
appreciated.  Thus far, our search for the answers at the linux.org, et.
al. web sites has turned up no answers to our questions.

Thanks,

LScott

 
 
 

_Networking Ques.: Is "Peer-to-Peer" Networking Possible Among Multiple Linux Standalone Machines?

Post by Matt » Sun, 21 Mar 1999 04:00:00


Went looking for you to maybe find some good source of information for
you...  Couldn't find anything other then a reference to using Samba on the
Linux Machine to allow communication with other Win machines.

When deciding on a solution or path the amount of information you find on
the subject can be a really good hint on the direction you should take.

I personally havn't used the peer to peer method in several years and that
was with AppleTalk.

If you are looking for simplisity then stick as closly as possible to common
standards.

A simple hub & "star" configuration is easy to set up, easy to maintain,
easy to upgrade, and can be done at a  on a very tight budget.

Don't worry about the client server stuff.  If you move to all linux then
Linux works very well with tcp/ip.  There is plenty of information and you
can add new services when you are ready without much hassle.

Another big benefit of this is not being as slow as your slowest link and
the ability to upgrade piece by piece.  You can upgrade a hub without
upgrading all of the clients.  Then upgrade the clients when you get around
to it.  You can service a client without stopping production on all of your
clients.

In the future if you want a dedicated server... Plug it in.

Don't get lost (or stuck) in existing models.  Something is not working for
you now and you must change.  Make your change as painless as possible with
the most potential for growth.

Just my opinion,

Matt W.

LScott <t1...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:01be731d$44795240$4a14bfa8@nuncus...
> Gentlemen and Ladies:

> This message asks whether a "Peer-to-Peer" network, instead of a
> client-server network, may be used between multiple, standalone, Linux
> machines.  Our "QUESTIONS" follow the preliminary "BACKGROUND" information
> provided with respect to the current design of the existing network that
we
> want to convert entirely into a "peer-to-peer" Linux-only network (if
> possible and reasonably practical to do so).

> BACKGROUND: We would like to convert our computing entirely over to Linux
> operating systems in all of our computers.  That is, we would like to have
> Linux be the sole and only operating system used in our organization.
> Thus, we have no plans at all for integrating any other O/S, such as
> Windows or Macintosh, with or into this Linux network that we hope we can
> accomplish.

> Historically, we have conducted our activities in our workgroup in a
> so-called "peer-to-peer" network configuration that has the following
> characteristics:

> 1. There are four machines in our immediate group:

> a. Three (3) standalone workstations; and

> b. One file server that contains only an O/S and
> the data files with which the personnel at the
> three standalone machines perform their work.

> 2. Each of the three standalone workstations contains
> the various programs and applications employed by
> the users at their respective standalone machines in
> accomplishing their work.

> Note:  Only programs and applications are kept on
> the hard drives of the three standalone machines; no
> data files at all are kept on the hard drives of the three
> standalone machines.

> Further: Each of the respective users of the
> standalone machines is entirely free to use
> the applications and programs of his or her
> own choice in performing his or her own work.

> Thus, in varying degree, the three standalone
> machines each contains differing programs and
> applications fom the other standalone workstations.

> 3. The file server contains no programs or applications
> whatsoever.  In other words, no programs are run
> from the file server by any of the standalone machines.

> However, in addition to being only a "file server,"
> the file server is the machine that

> a. contains the printers for the entire network
> and actually handles for the entire network
> the print jobs that are sent to it from the
> three standalone machines; and

> b. contains the Post Office for the email system
> used on the network.  The Post Office is actually
> remotely administered by one of the users on
> one of the three standalone machines.

> 4. The following "resources" are shared around
> the network by all four machines:

> a. All drives and directories (Or "folders") and
> files are read/write shared by all four
> machines;

> b. The printers (located on the file server) are
> shared by all four machines;

> c. One of the three standalone machines is a
> dial-in network server for the entire network
> and also acts as a faxmodem (fax) server for
> all of the machines in the network.

> 5. No programs at all are shared as between any two or
> more computers in the network.

> 5. The network uses thin ethernet coax cable that runs
> from  each machine to the next -- i.e., there is no
> "star" or "hub" involved.

> Although at first blush this network may seem "too open" or lacking in the
> security features of a "client-server" network arrangement, you may assume
> that, among the persons who work in this network, security is not an
issue.
>  To the extent that security may be required from time to time, we simply
> password the relevant directories or other resources so that they can be
> used only by those who are working upon the particular project that needs
> to be secured.

> QUESTIONS: Based upon the foregoing background information provided with
> respect to our currently existing network, and since, to a person, we are
> the barest of novices at Linux, we would be most appreciative if the more
> knowledgeable and experienced members of the newsgroup could enlighten us
> with respect to the questions we need to consider in making our transition
> of our existing network to a Linux-only network:

> 1. Can Linux be networked as a "Peer-to-Peer"
> network as described above?

> a. If so, do the distributions of Linux come
> equipped to set up such a network or is
> some additional network application or
> program needed to effect the "Peer-to-Peer"
> network configuration that we want to create?

> b. If not, what kind of network would we have
> to use?  Client-Server?  (client-server is simply
> overkill for us)

> 2. Can Linux be used to accomplish the "sharing" of the
> resources as we have outlined the degree of "resource
> sharing" above?

> If so, is this a complicated matter to accomplish or is
> it a relatively simple matter such as is true in
> peer-to-peer networking in Windows for Workgroups
> and among Win95 machines that have been arranged
> in workgroups?

> 3. Finally, in the event that we should find ourselves
> at some point merging or combining with another
> group that uses an O/S different from Linux (such
> as NT, Win95/98, Macintosh, or OS2):

> a. Is it a complicated matter to "plug in" a Linux
> workgroup, such as ours would be, into a larger
> network that uses neither Linux nor Unix as
> the O/S for its network?

> b. Is it a complicated matter to "plug in" a
> computer -- that uses an O/S other than
> Linux -- to a Linux workgroup such as the
> one we hope we can create?  (i.e., for
> example, would it be particulary difficult
> for an NT or for a Win95/98 machine to
> join us and use our network?).

> These two operations ("plug in" to someone else's
> network and remain peer-to-peer among ourselves
> or "plug in" someone else to our peer-to-peer
> network and have them now also be a peer-to-peer
> member of our workgroup) was, and has been,
> rather simple and easy to accomplish both under
> Windows for Workgroups and under Win95.  Are
> we in for some wrenching "shocks" and "surprises"
> under Linux?  Or, will life just go on -- albeit under
> a different, and hopefully much more useful,
> operating system?

> 4. Finally, given what we would like to accomplish
> with our network configuration, is there a
> particular distribution of  Linux upon which we
> should be focusing?  SUSE? Caldera? RedHat?

> Sorry to send up such a long message, but we thought it would probably be
> best to "lay it all out at once" and first find out if we are even on the
> right track or whether we need to learn a whole new mindset with respect
to
> how we are going to have to get our work done under Linux?

> Any enlightenment, insights, suggestions, comments, or references to web
> or hard copy resources with respect to our questions will be greatly
> appreciated.  Thus far, our search for the answers at the linux.org, et.
> al. web sites has turned up no answers to our questions.

> Thanks,

> LScott


 
 
 

_Networking Ques.: Is "Peer-to-Peer" Networking Possible Among Multiple Linux Standalone Machines?

Post by wclark_x.. » Mon, 22 Mar 1999 04:00:00


In article <01be731d$44795240$4a14bfa8@nuncus>,
  "LScott" <t1...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> [...]
> Thus, we have no plans at all for integrating any other O/S, such as
> Windows or Macintosh, with or into this Linux network that we hope we can
> accomplish.

Although you have no current plans to incorporate Windows or Macintosh, it is
worthwhile to note that a network of Linux (or any UNIX) machines _is_ capable
of providing the same services you would expect from a Windows or Macintosh
network.  There are Free UNIX applications that provide AppleTalk file-sharing
capabilities and printer support, Windows network drives and printer support,
and Network Neighborhood support.  Such information might be useful in the
future, and I would suggest recording it for later reference.

> [...]
> 1. There are four machines in our immediate group:

>    a.      Three (3) standalone workstations; and

All workstations can be seamlessly replaced with Linux boxes, without
adversely affecting any network services.

>    b.      One file server that contains only an O/S and
>            the data files with which the personnel at the
>            three standalone machines perform their work.

The Free UNIX application which provides this type of service is NFS.  At
past jobs, I have also set up file servers that utilize NFS as well as Samba
and NetAtalk (two other Free UNIX applications) to provide network drive
support for mixed groups of FreeBSD, Linux, Win95, Win98, WinNT, and
Macintosh clients simultaneously.  All of this worked fine.

> 2. Each of the three standalone workstations contains
>    the various programs and applications employed by
>    the users at their respective standalone machines in
>    accomplishing their work.

You will need to do research to make sure that similar applications are
available for Linux.  For example, if your users do their work using mainly
Netscape and Microsoft Office, the Linux equivalent would be Netscape (there
is a direct port) and probably StarOffice (a Microsoft Office clone for
Linux). There are Free UNIX ports for most purposes, but many specialized
applications may not have a direct analogue.  It is important to check this
first.

>    Note:  Only programs and applications are kept on
>    the hard drives of the three standalone machines; no
>    data files at all are kept on the hard drives of the three
>    standalone machines.

NFS can provide this type of network support seamlessly (In fact, that's
primarily what it was designed for).

>    Further:        Each of the respective users of the
>    standalone machines is entirely free to use
>    the applications and programs of his or her
>    own choice in performing his or her own work.

That also is not a problem (most if not all Free UNIX applications are
stand-alone, in that they run entirely on the client machine with no need for
server support).

> [...]
>    a.      contains the printers for the entire network
>            and actually handles for the entire network
>            the print jobs that are sent to it from the
>            three standalone machines; and

The service you will need to run on your print server (which could reasonably
be _any_ box in your network, including your file server) and on all the
client boxes is "lpd".        It is installed as a standard part of Linux.

>    b.      contains the Post Office for the email system
>            used on the network.  The Post Office is actually
>            remotely administered by one of the users on
>            one of the three standalone machines.

There is a standard system service called "Sendmail" that comes as a standard
part of Linux, but I would _highly_ recommend upgrading to a different Free
UNIX application called "Qmail".  Qmail has a number of additional security
features and is generally considered faster and more stable than Sendmail.

In general, Linux does not distinguish between "remote" administration and
"local" administration.  Once a command shell has been started, it does not
really matter whether it was started from the console or via the network.  In
other words, remote administration is exactly the same (so far as the server
is concerned) as local administration, so it will not be a problem to have
any of your network services administered from client workstations.

> [...]
>    a.      All drives and directories (Or "folders") and
>            files are read/write shared by all four
>            machines;

NFS provides this support for UNIX.
Samba provides this support for Windows.
NetAtalk provides this support for Macintosh.

>    b.      The printers (located on the file server) are
>            shared by all four machines;

lpd provides this support for UNIX.
Samba provides this support for Windows.
NetAtalk provides this support for Macintosh.

>    c.      One of the three standalone machines is a
>            dial-in network server for the entire network
>            and also acts as a faxmodem (fax) server for
>            all of the machines in the network.

I have no experience in setting up such boxes, so I unfortunately cannot
provide you with any specifics on what Free UNIX application(s) you would use
in that case.

I do know that it is possible to set up such services, and that others have
done so successfully.

> 5. No programs at all are shared as between any two or
>    more computers in the network.

This is the default (no NFS exporting).  If, at a later date you decide you
_do_ want to share programs, that is possible as well.

> 5. The network uses thin ethernet coax cable that runs
>    from  each machine to the next -- i.e., there is no
>    "star" or "hub" involved.

You will need to turn on the "routed" service on your Linux boxes to make
this work.  This is slightly more complicated than in a hub configuration,
but it works very well once it is set up.  I would highly recommend switching
to CAT5 Ethernet and a hub (or even switch) for your network, because your
current configuration is making very poor use of the available network
resources.  That recommendation would stand regardless of the operating
system used.

> Although at first blush this network may seem "too open" or lacking in the
> security features of a "client-server" network arrangement, you may assume
> that, among the persons who work in this network, security is not an issue.

Regardless of whether security is an issue among your users, the all-Linux
network you describe is far more secure than any Windows or Macintosh
network. A single Linux box introduced into a Windows-only network is capable
of taking control of nearly every network service, and of bringing the
network to its knees.  The reason is that Linux allows direct access to the
network on the packet level, by means of the Berkeley Packet Filter (BPF).
On a Linux box with the BPF turned on, a user is capable of reading _all_ of
the data that is sent over the local network.  There are Free UNIX
applications that protect against this by using strong (RSA) encryption on
all data sent over the network, but to my knowledge there are no similar
applications for either Windows or Macintosh.

>  To the extent that security may be required from time to time, we simply
> password the relevant directories or other resources so that they can be
> used only by those who are working upon the particular project that needs
> to be secured.

Linux provides support for that type of security, as well as much stronger
measures.

> [...]
> 1. Can Linux be networked as a "Peer-to-Peer"
>    network as described above?

Yes.

>    a.      If so, do the distributions of Linux come
>            equipped to set up such a network or is
>            some additional network application or
>            program needed to effect the "Peer-to-Peer"
>            network configuration that we want to create?

All of the above-mentioned Free UNIX applications either come pre-installed or
are available for download from the internet.  All come with detailed
instructions on how to install them and how to configure them.  As you have
already discovered, posting to Usenet can usually get you answers as well :).

> [...]
> 2. Can Linux be used to accomplish the "sharing" of the
>    resources as we have outlined the degree of "resource
>    sharing" above?

Yes.

>    If so, is this a complicated matter to accomplish or is
>    it a relatively simple matter such as is true in
>    peer-to-peer networking in Windows for Workgroups
>    and among Win95 machines that have been arranged
>    in workgroups?

It mainly depends on how complicated your *goals* are.  Windows tends to be
easier when everything works as it should (which is basically never).  Linux
provides a much finer granularity for tuning, which means it is easier to
construct more complicated networks, but it also means a higher initial
learning curve, as there are more steps involved in the initial setup.

> [...]
>    a.      Is it a complicated matter to "plug in" a Linux
>            workgroup, such as ours would be, into a larger
>            network that uses neither Linux nor Unix as
>            the O/S for its network?

Yes.  Unfortunately, Linux (or any UNIX) makes a very poor client in a
non-UNIX environment.  However, it is entirely possible to share physical
resources (printers, external network connections, etc.) in a way that both
the Linux network and non-UNIX network are capable of using them.  This
essentially makes it unnecessary for you to "plug in" the Linux workgroup at
all, and to keep the two networks distinct (or to have the smaller Linux
workgroup actually "control" the larger non-UNIX network).

>    b.      Is it a complicated matter to "plug in" a
>            computer -- that uses an O/S other than
>            Linux -- to a Linux workgroup such as the
>            one we hope we can create?  (i.e., for
>            example, would it be particulary difficult
>            for an NT or for a Win95/98 machine to
>            join us and use our network?).

No.

> [...]
>    Are we in for some wrenching "shocks" and "surprises"
>    under Linux?

I suspect that you _will_ be subject to many "shocks" and "surprises", but
only over how much faster and reliable your network has become.
> 4. Finally, given what we would like to accomplish
>    with our network configuration, is there a

...

read more »

 
 
 

_Networking Ques.: Is "Peer-to-Peer" Networking Possible Among Multiple Linux Standalone Machines?

Post by Erik Hense » Mon, 22 Mar 1999 04:00:00



>Gentlemen and Ladies:

>    This message asks whether a "Peer-to-Peer" network, instead of a
>client-server network, may be used between multiple, standalone, Linux
>machines.  Our "QUESTIONS" follow the preliminary "BACKGROUND" information
>provided with respect to the current design of the existing network that we
>want to convert entirely into a "peer-to-peer" Linux-only network (if
>possible and reasonably practical to do so).

Without reading any futher, I can say: Yes, it's absolutely possible to create
a peer-to-peer network using Linux. In fact, it's easy.

[snip background]

Quote:>QUESTIONS:  Based upon the foregoing background information provided with
>respect to our currently existing network, and since, to a person, we are
>the barest of novices at Linux, we would be most appreciative if the more
>knowledgeable and experienced members of the newsgroup could enlighten us
>with respect to the questions we need to consider in making our transition
>of our existing network to a Linux-only network:

>1.  Can Linux be networked as a "Peer-to-Peer"
>    network as described above?

Yes, no problem. The only thing I don't know about is the fax, but it
shouldn't be a problem.

Quote:

>    a.      If so, do the distributions of Linux come
>            equipped to set up such a network or is
>            some additional network application or
>            program needed to effect the "Peer-to-Peer"
>            network configuration that we want to create?

Every distribution I know comes with everything you need.

Quote:>2.  Can Linux be used to accomplish the "sharing" of the
>    resources as we have outlined the degree of "resource
>    sharing" above?

Yes. The drives can be shared with NFS (Network File System), or with Samba.
Samba uses the Windows SMB protocol, so you can add Windows clients to the
system if you wish. Also, Samba seems to be faster than NFS.
NFS is native Unix, so symlinks and other unix-specific permissions work.
Printing can be done using Samba or lpd. lpd is the native Unix solition.

Quote:>    If so, is this a complicated matter to accomplish or is
>    it a relatively simple matter such as is true in
>    peer-to-peer networking in Windows for Workgroups
>    and among Win95 machines that have been arranged
>    in workgroups?

It's not complicated, but if you've never worked with Linux before, I suggest
you hire someone to set the system up. However, if you like toying with
computers, first put Linux on a standalone non-production computer, and try to
find out everything yourself.

Quote:>3.  Finally, in the event that we should find ourselves
>    at some point merging or combining with another
>    group that uses an O/S different from Linux (such
>    as NT, Win95/98, Macintosh, or OS2):

>    a.      Is it a complicated matter to "plug in" a Linux
>            workgroup, such as ours would be, into a larger
>            network that uses neither Linux nor Unix as
>            the O/S for its network?

Linux can be a client and server for all os'es, except maybe for the Apple's,
for which it meight only be a client, I don't know.

Quote:

>    b.      Is it a complicated matter to "plug in" a
>            computer -- that uses an O/S other than
>            Linux -- to a Linux workgroup such as the
>            one we hope we can create?  (i.e., for
>            example, would it be particulary difficult
>            for an NT or for a Win95/98 machine to
>            join us and use our network?).

No, just use Samba.

Quote:>4.  Finally, given what we would like to accomplish
>    with our network configuration, is there a
>    particular distribution of  Linux upon which we
>    should be focusing?  SUSE? Caldera? RedHat?

Maybe Suse 6.1, because it's the most up-to-date distro (it isn't even out yet
;-) )

Quote:>    Sorry to send up such a long message, but we thought it would probably be
>best to "lay it all out at once" and first find out if we are even on the
>right track or whether we need to learn a whole new mindset with respect to
>how we are going to have to get our work done under Linux?

You're doing great. You know exactly what you want, and that's the most
important step.

Quote:>    Any enlightenment, insights, suggestions, comments, or references to web
>or hard copy resources with respect to our questions will be greatly
>appreciated.  Thus far, our search for the answers at the linux.org, et.
>al. web sites has turned up no answers to our questions.

Just install Linux on a non-production machine, and toy with it. Then you'll
find out.

--

 
 
 

1. Peer-to-Peer Network of LINUX Workstations, IS IT POSSIBLE?

IS IT possible to create a PEER-TO-PEER network of Linux Boxes.
(We have 30 systems running in WinNT Domain and want to replace WinOS
with Linux on all the systems.)

And how can I create user accounts, so that any user can logon to any
machine in the lab (roaming profile under NT)? IS IT POSSIBLE in LINUX
to administer User A/c's on a SERVER instead of managing User A/C's
locally on each LINUX BOX.

Detailed help highly appreciated!!!
Thanks!

From :

Trainee Software Engineer,
Daffodil Software (P) Ltd.
<http://www.daffodilwoods.com>

2. windos wmv files

3. How can I put a linux machine on a peer-to-peer network

4. AlphaLinux and Compaq

5. Peer-to-peer network between a Linux and a DOS

6. floating point exception running top on cyrix p166 with linux 2.0.28

7. how do I setup a peer-to-peer network with Linux??

8. Getting KDE 1.1.2 to install

9. Linux Peer-to-Peer networking problems

10. how do I install a peer-to-peer network on Linux??

11. Who is the gateway in a 2PC Linux Peer-to-Peer network?

12. Peer-to-peer network: Linux + Win98

13. web servers and peer-to-peer networks with Linux