Performance of remote office link to main office

Performance of remote office link to main office

Post by Michael Burnfor » Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:38:23



We need to link a remote office (12person) <1mile to the main office which
runs SBS4.5 50-user.
Reading these posts and talking with suppliers it seems that we can link
them with ISDN (already present in both) and they will both appear on same
LAN. The local exchange does not offer ADSL yet.

Is 64k (or even 128k) feasible to use Windows apps (Outlook, Word and
Excel)? My experience of using pcAnyWhere and Netmeeting over dialup is OK
for support, but too slow for users - they will keep clicking when things
don't happen at once. And these only transfer screens, keystrokes etc. But
then maybe the screen refreshes are the slow bits and a full client running
Word etc. locally is much better? And would Terminal Server at the main
office be much better?

Another option suggested was ISDN to ISP with always on plan to VPN through
existing 64k leased line and firewall in main office.

The total users will soon exceed 50 and it is time to upgrade to W2k server
on new machine. Also this is a short term solution as the whole company will
move to one site in a year or so. My own feeling, and from reading these
posts, is that one main server is better, or is it better to keep SBS4.5 in
main office and have second W2k in remote?

Another thing of course is the internal phones. Can they be connected by the
same means?

I'm confused. Have you real experience of various options, and which is
acceptable to normal impatient users over slow connections? Also which
option is most effective and economical in hardware and licensing costs.

Michael Burnford

 
 
 

Performance of remote office link to main office

Post by Jeff Middleton [SBS MVP » Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:34:00


You definitely need to go to a TS.

Generally, you could do the 12 users on 64kb, but it would be ugly unless 8
users at a time are idle.  Going to 128Kb would be much better, and could
handle over 12 users with no sweat.  Keep in mind, bandwidth demands are not
arithmetic to the number of users, rather you have to have a baseline of
bandwidth to start supporting anything over 1 user, then the additional
needs are a statistical issue of the number of users, amount of data
passing, etc.

Now, once you add phone lines to the mix, you have a new dynamic. Voice over
IP can certainly be done "in band" of this same circuit, but you must commit
the bandwidth required for those calls on the rate of 16kb per voice line.
Voice is unforgiving of delayed packets over 160ms, and this becomes the
challenge. To do voice and data on the same circuit, you must use QoS
(quality of service) features on all router devices from end to end.
Certainly it can be done, but this becomes a more advanced topic instantly.
Doing the TS on the 128Kb is pretty simple, no big deal. Doing voice on the
same line for forwarding telco lines is a much more complicated matter, and
you should get technical assistance on this from someone with skills and
significant understanding of the details.

The Internet as a transport medium both solves and creates problems. Even if
you might have more bandwidth, you have NO ability to maintain QoS, so the
voice issues become even more complicated, potentially unsolvable.

As for how many servers, and where to put them, I don't find that there is
any comparison to placing all the servers, SBS and Tserver, in the one
office as a well designed and managed system. Splitting the servers means
splitting the management, data protection, virus protection, bulky data
storage....everything.  Much better to configure one site for remote access
from anywhere....because that scales as much as you like with no increase in
cost.


Quote:> We need to link a remote office (12person) <1mile to the main office which
> runs SBS4.5 50-user.
> Reading these posts and talking with suppliers it seems that we can link
> them with ISDN (already present in both) and they will both appear on same
> LAN. The local exchange does not offer ADSL yet.

> Is 64k (or even 128k) feasible to use Windows apps (Outlook, Word and
> Excel)? My experience of using pcAnyWhere and Netmeeting over dialup is OK
> for support, but too slow for users - they will keep clicking when things
> don't happen at once. And these only transfer screens, keystrokes etc. But
> then maybe the screen refreshes are the slow bits and a full client
running
> Word etc. locally is much better? And would Terminal Server at the main
> office be much better?

> Another option suggested was ISDN to ISP with always on plan to VPN
through
> existing 64k leased line and firewall in main office.

> The total users will soon exceed 50 and it is time to upgrade to W2k
server
> on new machine. Also this is a short term solution as the whole company
will
> move to one site in a year or so. My own feeling, and from reading these
> posts, is that one main server is better, or is it better to keep SBS4.5
in
> main office and have second W2k in remote?

> Another thing of course is the internal phones. Can they be connected by
the
> same means?

> I'm confused. Have you real experience of various options, and which is
> acceptable to normal impatient users over slow connections? Also which
> option is most effective and economical in hardware and licensing costs.

> Michael Burnford


 
 
 

Performance of remote office link to main office

Post by Michael Burnfor » Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:36:47


Jeff

Many thanks for a very informative reply.
I'll aim for 128k ISDN between the sites, via an ISP if necessary, and go to
ADSL when available.
So I understand that means a remote client will perceive perfectly adequate
speed as a VPN client while using the app, but will have to wait longer only
when opening and saving documents? What about performance when looking at
different folders in Outlook with Exchange Server?

What is the advantage of having Terminal Server as well, over just remote
clients on VPN to the main (only) server if the actual apps are running
locally, and data is held on the main server in both cases?

I think I'll pass the phone stuff to the experts!

Michael



> You definitely need to go to a TS.

> Generally, you could do the 12 users on 64kb, but it would be ugly unless
8
> users at a time are idle.  Going to 128Kb would be much better, and could
> handle over 12 users with no sweat.  Keep in mind, bandwidth demands are
not
> arithmetic to the number of users, rather you have to have a baseline of
> bandwidth to start supporting anything over 1 user, then the additional
> needs are a statistical issue of the number of users, amount of data
> passing, etc.

> Now, once you add phone lines to the mix, you have a new dynamic. Voice
over
> IP can certainly be done "in band" of this same circuit, but you must
commit
> the bandwidth required for those calls on the rate of 16kb per voice line.
> Voice is unforgiving of delayed packets over 160ms, and this becomes the
> challenge. To do voice and data on the same circuit, you must use QoS
> (quality of service) features on all router devices from end to end.
> Certainly it can be done, but this becomes a more advanced topic
instantly.
> Doing the TS on the 128Kb is pretty simple, no big deal. Doing voice on
the
> same line for forwarding telco lines is a much more complicated matter,
and
> you should get technical assistance on this from someone with skills and
> significant understanding of the details.

> The Internet as a transport medium both solves and creates problems. Even
if
> you might have more bandwidth, you have NO ability to maintain QoS, so the
> voice issues become even more complicated, potentially unsolvable.

> As for how many servers, and where to put them, I don't find that there is
> any comparison to placing all the servers, SBS and Tserver, in the one
> office as a well designed and managed system. Splitting the servers means
> splitting the management, data protection, virus protection, bulky data
> storage....everything.  Much better to configure one site for remote
access
> from anywhere....because that scales as much as you like with no increase
in
> cost.



> > We need to link a remote office (12person) <1mile to the main office
which
> > runs SBS4.5 50-user.
> > Reading these posts and talking with suppliers it seems that we can link
> > them with ISDN (already present in both) and they will both appear on
same
> > LAN. The local exchange does not offer ADSL yet.

> > Is 64k (or even 128k) feasible to use Windows apps (Outlook, Word and
> > Excel)? My experience of using pcAnyWhere and Netmeeting over dialup is
OK
> > for support, but too slow for users - they will keep clicking when
things
> > don't happen at once. And these only transfer screens, keystrokes etc.
But
> > then maybe the screen refreshes are the slow bits and a full client
> running
> > Word etc. locally is much better? And would Terminal Server at the main
> > office be much better?

> > Another option suggested was ISDN to ISP with always on plan to VPN
> through
> > existing 64k leased line and firewall in main office.

> > The total users will soon exceed 50 and it is time to upgrade to W2k
> server
> > on new machine. Also this is a short term solution as the whole company
> will
> > move to one site in a year or so. My own feeling, and from reading these
> > posts, is that one main server is better, or is it better to keep SBS4.5
> in
> > main office and have second W2k in remote?

> > Another thing of course is the internal phones. Can they be connected by
> the
> > same means?

> > I'm confused. Have you real experience of various options, and which is
> > acceptable to normal impatient users over slow connections? Also which
> > option is most effective and economical in hardware and licensing costs.

> > Michael Burnford

 
 
 

Performance of remote office link to main office

Post by Greg Macare » Wed, 31 Oct 2001 23:08:55


Guys,

    Why can't you use a wireless lan connection (10mb) if it is indeed under
1 mile point to point ?

No phone bills, just a couple of access points and a directional antenna
mounted on the highest point of each building !

any real world info from anyone ?

Greg



> >We need to link a remote office (12person) <1mile to the main office
which
> >runs SBS4.5 50-user.
> [snip]>
> >Is 64k (or even 128k) feasible to use Windows apps (Outlook, Word and
> >Excel)? My experience of using pcAnyWhere and Netmeeting over dialup is
OK
> >for support, but too slow for users - they will keep clicking when things
> >don't happen at once. And these only transfer screens, keystrokes etc.
But
> >then maybe the screen refreshes are the slow bits and a full client
running
> >Word etc. locally is much better?

> I'm not sure I understand the problem.  You only use the line to
> transfer data files.  Outlook, Word, and Excel still runs on your
> local machine, so mouse clicks, keystrokes, screen refresh are not
> issues.  It's NOT the same as using pcAnywhere or netmeeting.

 
 
 

Performance of remote office link to main office

Post by Rick Bon » Wed, 31 Oct 2001 23:23:08


It just so happens that within the past couple/few months I've installed
such a thing.  We have a location across a parking lot (about 300 - 400
feet) and our options were wireless or dig up the parking lot and run fiber.
The wireless was a much less expensive option.  We ordered the SMC EZ
Connect Wireless Bridge (3 of them) and 3 of their strongest antennae.  The
antennae say they'll transmit 9 miles with line of sight and that with
shorter ranges, line of sight isn't necessary.  Like I said, we're about
300 - 400 feet and it's working great.  Just plug them into a switch on each
end and set them up via their web interface.  Really easy to setup and for
the 3 units, 3 antennae and 3 cords to go between the unit and the antennae
it cost us about $1700.  That was for 3 mind you because we'll have another
location early next year that we'll need to use this with as well which will
be no more than another 100 feet away.  It's working well...the speed is
pretty good.  I've got 2 PC's at the remote location running the Internet
and IBM Client Access Express across it to make use of our AS/400
mainframe...and they use the AS/400 A LOT!!  I'm happy with it thus far.  I
got the Unit and Antennae as a bundle from PC Connection (which was a little
cheaper than separately) and then added the antennae cables.  You need some
sort of stand for the antennae too which you could order, but I just had our
maintenance department build me something for that.

--
Take Care,
Rick Bond

http://www.tcarms.com - Thompson/Center Arms
http://www.foxridgeoutfitters.com - Fox Ridge Outfitters
http://www.thompsoninvestmentcasting.com - Thompson Investment Casting


> Guys,

>     Why can't you use a wireless lan connection (10mb) if it is indeed
under
> 1 mile point to point ?

> No phone bills, just a couple of access points and a directional antenna
> mounted on the highest point of each building !

> any real world info from anyone ?

> Greg




> > >We need to link a remote office (12person) <1mile to the main office
> which
> > >runs SBS4.5 50-user.
> > [snip]>
> > >Is 64k (or even 128k) feasible to use Windows apps (Outlook, Word and
> > >Excel)? My experience of using pcAnyWhere and Netmeeting over dialup is
> OK
> > >for support, but too slow for users - they will keep clicking when
things
> > >don't happen at once. And these only transfer screens, keystrokes etc.
> But
> > >then maybe the screen refreshes are the slow bits and a full client
> running
> > >Word etc. locally is much better?

> > I'm not sure I understand the problem.  You only use the line to
> > transfer data files.  Outlook, Word, and Excel still runs on your
> > local machine, so mouse clicks, keystrokes, screen refresh are not
> > issues.  It's NOT the same as using pcAnywhere or netmeeting.

 
 
 

Performance of remote office link to main office

Post by Jeff Middleton [SBS-MVP » Thu, 01 Nov 2001 00:16:19


Outlook works pretty transparently over a low bandwidth link, except when you go to open a large attachment, and even certain larger faxes can be a problem because they are uncompressible.  The TS resolves all of this because all the data stays on the servers in the home office. Only print jobs or file transfers to a local desktop (like a laptop looking to take files with it) create large file transfers.

I posted this some time ago on a similar thread, so it makes some reference to a different conversation, but it's got some useful ideas:

Most organizations would benefit far more from a centrally located SBS and Terminal Server, then from establishing servers in each site.  There are cost, management, maintenance and performance issues involved.

If you compare the bandwidth and connectivity requirements to synchronize BDCs in the remote office, you will quickly decide this is not a better answer.  You don't need a lot of security traffic on the WAN if the only thing in the remote offices are TS client workstations....all the authentication is happening at the TS and the SBS location.  You don't need BDCs, and I would have suggested that even if you didn't use TS, a BDC would be pointless anyway.....just let the SBS authenticate over the WAN...it works fine.  Managing data and servers in multiple sites becomes a huge data protection, synchronization, information organization, user training and maintenance problem.  It's really not the right idea.

For an organization with a home office and a single remote site, if you follow the approach you proposed, you would be building a server for the remote site....and you have data at the remote site, therefore you need to have data backup (tape drive) at the remote site, and you have to have security authentication handled.  If you look at the cost involved, you can easily configure a Terminal Server in the home office for less money than the server in the remote office.  If you place a TS in the home office, you can use it to host more than one remote site.  In doing this, you eliminate the cost of servers in each of the additional sites.  The TS is simpler to configure since you configure programs once, and all users have access to those applications.  Therefore, you don't have to configure the workstations in the remote offices with applications, nor do you need to do application upgrades there.  Accordingly, the equipment cost is about the same on the first remote office deployment, can rapidly becomes cheaper as additional offices are added.

By placing the TS in the home office, you centralize the data in one location, as well as the management processes.  You SBS configuration remains basically the same, the TS just behaves as a centrally located client station that hosts multiple user sessions simultaneously.  Accordingly, management of the network remains in the central office...much easier to maintain.

Connections to TS require about 24kb per sessions. You cannot get a lighterweight bandwidth connection for pulling data over the wire than that. Therefore, from the WAN standpoint, the cheapest office to office bandwidth requirements are for TS services. You can run TS clients via 33.6 modems individually, or use dedicated WAN links with ISDN, or VPNs with ADSL if you prefer.  The only decision here is if you have the desire to use one strategy or another for reasons that don't really relate to the TS client needs.  For instance, if you have users with laptops that want to bring data over the wire for road travel, this increases the bandwidth needs.  Printing of faxes over the WAN link is a consideration because they are reasonably large documents.  

Once you have a TS deployed, you will find it much more easy to manage, and particular you have even more options available to you. You can dial in from anywhere on a direct modem connection (like the boss calling from home on the weekend), or using VPNs if you like. This means that the TS deployment opens up the option not just for branch offices, but for roadwarrior connections from anywhere. No matter where someone is, they could connect in and have a "like being there" experience.

Because all the processing is done by the TS locally to the SBS, you don't need high performance machines or LAN equipment in the satellite offices. Probably only the printers become the issue for designing a LAN smart group of equipment.  Your workstations can be configured with minimal hardware (slowest processor you can buy), no CDROM, no modems, minimal RAM....or use Windows Terminals if you like.  Installation of TS client software on a Win9x/WinNT computer takes all of about 60 secs.

I have recently completed a project connecting a home office with 4 remote offices in different states in the US. The connection is with frame-relay connection with 128Kb in each satellite office, 256Kb in the home office (the hub of the connections). The remote offices run 10Bt network to a router to connect onto the frame.  The home office has DSL web connectivity that is available to all users from the TS via Proxy Server on the SBS....so all users have web connectivity just like in the local LAN, and there's only one web connection for the entire org.  The majority of data never leaves a the computer room in the home office, which consists of an SBS, a TS, and a fileserver. In total, there are about 45 workstations in 5 cities running from a single TS computer (Dual PIII 650 with 512Mb under Win2K and a RAID5). The SBS is connected up in exactly the same way as you would normally do it.  The fileserver is also simply a Win2K data vault.

I have chosen for this customer to recommend the purchase of Celeron computers running Win2K Pro for each new workstation, and about 70% of the machines are now new. This was done to standardize the operation on the lowest cost of maintenance platform while retaining the option to use these computers in the future as standalone PCs (for resale or redeployment options), rather than purchasing Winterminals.  I have also chose to go beyond the basics with configuring them, and I have developed a "method" for making all stations boot into a "kiosk" mode at powerup.  This way, each TS client station has a single logon screen for any user to use that initiates the TS logon....and this provides a full-screen session that is essentially indistiguishable from a normal Win2K desktop. In addition, I have use Logon Policies to control the desktops and Start Menus to eliminate all but the bare essential applications.....think 6 icons.  The result of this is to eliminate training on pointless stuff in the standard Win2K menus. The desktop itself is disabled (no icons).  All of this was done to reduce the support and complexity of the user experiences, and it's all controlled from just three computers.

The deployment that I have done is not the least expensive method in terms of raw cost, but it is a remarkably inexpensive system to maintain and support.  The servers are the only really critical hardware in the environment. If a client workstation should fail, we simply ship an identical replacement computer that has essentially nothing more than a base Win2K installation plus the TS client. Using Drive Image to image a standard installation, I can load a new machine in about ten minutes and it's ready to go.  I also have the necessary files configured so that a new station can be added to the LAN (the WAN actually) in a remote office and configured in about five minutes.  A logon script will take any Win2K computer and pull the essential TS client files and custom interface design tools over the wire. It also force the client to accept virus scanner software...also pulled over the frame in about 5 minutes. In total, with a single logon, a new workstation that is already running Win2K can be fully operational to do anything any other computer can do in about 10 minutes. Even though I build my own computers, this means that the customer could order pretty much any computer product they want and install it themselves in 10 minutes by just logging it onto the network.

I've spent more time and detail to explain this than I think you need because there are others that have expressed interest in this project. I wanted to share this information with you to hopefully help you realize that the practical and cost advantages of what I've have done are directly inline with you concerns.  Hopefully, you will be able to consider some of this for your project.

 
 
 

Performance of remote office link to main office

Post by Paul » Thu, 01 Nov 2001 05:55:16


Hi Michael,

From you web address I'm assuming your in the UK

might be interested in what I'm currently setting up.

You can purchase a BT ESP9 circuit for 390 a year with 840 connection
costs (both sites), BT try to keep this under wraps but they are obliged to
supply them and they do know that they are used for sdsl.

http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/current/docs/Private_Cir_/0377.htm

I have purchased some sdsl (g.sdhl) modems (750 for both, can get cheaper
where you set ip address with DIP switches, unbelievable but true!!!) and
theoretically you can get max 2.3Meg on this system, if you get a couple of
esp9 (or eps1?) circuits can get modems which will can aggregate to over
9meg !!!

Will know in about a fortnight how it goes, have setup a bdc at the remote
site with sbs 4.5 at main site

email me direct in about a fortnight and I can tell you how it goes

see ya

--

*****************************************************
Remove "junkmailersareidiots" when replying

Quote:> We need to link a remote office (12person) <1mile to the main office which
> runs SBS4.5 50-user.
> Reading these posts and talking with suppliers it seems that we can link
> them with ISDN (already present in both) and they will both appear on same
> LAN. The local exchange does not offer ADSL yet.

> Is 64k (or even 128k) feasible to use Windows apps (Outlook, Word and
> Excel)? My experience of using pcAnyWhere and Netmeeting over dialup is OK
> for support, but too slow for users - they will keep clicking when things
> don't happen at once. And these only transfer screens, keystrokes etc. But
> then maybe the screen refreshes are the slow bits and a full client
running
> Word etc. locally is much better? And would Terminal Server at the main
> office be much better?

> Another option suggested was ISDN to ISP with always on plan to VPN
through
> existing 64k leased line and firewall in main office.

> The total users will soon exceed 50 and it is time to upgrade to W2k
server
> on new machine. Also this is a short term solution as the whole company
will
> move to one site in a year or so. My own feeling, and from reading these
> posts, is that one main server is better, or is it better to keep SBS4.5
in
> main office and have second W2k in remote?

> Another thing of course is the internal phones. Can they be connected by
the
> same means?

> I'm confused. Have you real experience of various options, and which is
> acceptable to normal impatient users over slow connections? Also which
> option is most effective and economical in hardware and licensing costs.

> Michael Burnford

 
 
 

Performance of remote office link to main office

Post by Michael Burnfor » Thu, 01 Nov 2001 09:20:32


Jeff

Very lucid and interesting. Which server box needs to be better specified,
the SBS with Exchange Server etc, or the TS one?
With 60 users could I use the SBS for 45 at main office and the TS for the
12 in remote office,or would that not work? I was expecting to have to
change the SBS to a new box with 60-user W2k Server, and use the SBS for
something or other.

Also what is printing at the remote site like using TS? This is where
brochures are designed so there are some large A3 graphics jobs to local
inkjet.

Many thanks

Michael

"Jeff Middleton [SBS-MVP]" <j...@cfisolutions.com> wrote in message
news:e8nmpYVYBHA.1556@tkmsftngp05...
Outlook works pretty transparently over a low bandwidth link, except when
you go to open a large attachment, and even certain larger faxes can be a
problem because they are uncompressible.  The TS resolves all of this
because all the data stays on the servers in the home office. Only print
jobs or file transfers to a local desktop (like a laptop looking to take
files with it) create large file transfers.

I posted this some time ago on a similar thread, so it makes some reference
to a different conversation, but it's got some useful ideas:

Most organizations would benefit far more from a centrally located SBS and
Terminal Server, then from establishing servers in each site.  There are
cost, management, maintenance and performance issues involved.

If you compare the bandwidth and connectivity requirements to synchronize
BDCs in the remote office, you will quickly decide this is not a better
answer.  You don't need a lot of security traffic on the WAN if the only
thing in the remote offices are TS client workstations....all the
authentication is happening at the TS and the SBS location.  You don't need
BDCs, and I would have suggested that even if you didn't use TS, a BDC would
be pointless anyway.....just let the SBS authenticate over the WAN...it
works fine.  Managing data and servers in multiple sites becomes a huge data
protection, synchronization, information organization, user training and
maintenance problem.  It's really not the right idea.

For an organization with a home office and a single remote site, if you
follow the approach you proposed, you would be building a server for the
remote site....and you have data at the remote site, therefore you need to
have data backup (tape drive) at the remote site, and you have to have
security authentication handled.  If you look at the cost involved, you can
easily configure a Terminal Server in the home office for less money than
the server in the remote office.  If you place a TS in the home office, you
can use it to host more than one remote site.  In doing this, you eliminate
the cost of servers in each of the additional sites.  The TS is simpler to
configure since you configure programs once, and all users have access to
those applications.  Therefore, you don't have to configure the workstations
in the remote offices with applications, nor do you need to do application
upgrades there.  Accordingly, the equipment cost is about the same on the
first remote office deployment, can rapidly becomes cheaper as additional
offices are added.

By placing the TS in the home office, you centralize the data in one
location, as well as the management processes.  You SBS configuration
remains basically the same, the TS just behaves as a centrally located
client station that hosts multiple user sessions simultaneously.
Accordingly, management of the network remains in the central office...much
easier to maintain.

Connections to TS require about 24kb per sessions. You cannot get a
lighterweight bandwidth connection for pulling data over the wire than that.
Therefore, from the WAN standpoint, the cheapest office to office bandwidth
requirements are for TS services. You can run TS clients via 33.6 modems
individually, or use dedicated WAN links with ISDN, or VPNs with ADSL if you
prefer.  The only decision here is if you have the desire to use one
strategy or another for reasons that don't really relate to the TS client
needs.  For instance, if you have users with laptops that want to bring data
over the wire for road travel, this increases the bandwidth needs.  Printing
of faxes over the WAN link is a consideration because they are reasonably
large documents.

Once you have a TS deployed, you will find it much more easy to manage, and
particular you have even more options available to you. You can dial in from
anywhere on a direct modem connection (like the boss calling from home on
the weekend), or using VPNs if you like. This means that the TS deployment
opens up the option not just for branch offices, but for roadwarrior
connections from anywhere. No matter where someone is, they could connect in
and have a "like being there" experience.

Because all the processing is done by the TS locally to the SBS, you don't
need high performance machines or LAN equipment in the satellite offices.
Probably only the printers become the issue for designing a LAN smart group
of equipment.  Your workstations can be configured with minimal hardware
(slowest processor you can buy), no CDROM, no modems, minimal RAM....or use
Windows Terminals if you like.  Installation of TS client software on a
Win9x/WinNT computer takes all of about 60 secs.

I have recently completed a project connecting a home office with 4 remote
offices in different states in the US. The connection is with frame-relay
connection with 128Kb in each satellite office, 256Kb in the home office
(the hub of the connections). The remote offices run 10Bt network to a
router to connect onto the frame.  The home office has DSL web connectivity
that is available to all users from the TS via Proxy Server on the SBS....so
all users have web connectivity just like in the local LAN, and there's only
one web connection for the entire org.  The majority of data never leaves a
the computer room in the home office, which consists of an SBS, a TS, and a
fileserver. In total, there are about 45 workstations in 5 cities running
from a single TS computer (Dual PIII 650 with 512Mb under Win2K and a
RAID5). The SBS is connected up in exactly the same way as you would
normally do it.  The fileserver is also simply a Win2K data vault.

I have chosen for this customer to recommend the purchase of Celeron
computers running Win2K Pro for each new workstation, and about 70% of the
machines are now new. This was done to standardize the operation on the
lowest cost of maintenance platform while retaining the option to use these
computers in the future as standalone PCs (for resale or redeployment
options), rather than purchasing Winterminals.  I have also chose to go
beyond the basics with configuring them, and I have developed a "method" for
making all stations boot into a "kiosk" mode at powerup.  This way, each TS
client station has a single logon screen for any user to use that initiates
the TS logon....and this provides a full-screen session that is essentially
indistiguishable from a normal Win2K desktop. In addition, I have use Logon
Policies to control the desktops and Start Menus to eliminate all but the
bare essential applications.....think 6 icons.  The result of this is to
eliminate training on pointless stuff in the standard Win2K menus. The
desktop itself is disabled (no icons).  All of this was done to reduce the
support and complexity of the user experiences, and it's all controlled from
just three computers.

The deployment that I have done is not the least expensive method in terms
of raw cost, but it is a remarkably inexpensive system to maintain and
support.  The servers are the only really critical hardware in the
environment. If a client workstation should fail, we simply ship an
identical replacement computer that has essentially nothing more than a base
Win2K installation plus the TS client. Using Drive Image to image a standard
installation, I can load a new machine in about ten minutes and it's ready
to go.  I also have the necessary files configured so that a new station can
be added to the LAN (the WAN actually) in a remote office and configured in
about five minutes.  A logon script will take any Win2K computer and pull
the essential TS client files and custom interface design tools over the
wire. It also force the client to accept virus scanner software...also
pulled over the frame in about 5 minutes. In total, with a single logon, a
new workstation that is already running Win2K can be fully operational to do
anything any other computer can do in about 10 minutes. Even though I build
my own computers, this means that the customer could order pretty much any
computer product they want and install it themselves in 10 minutes by just
logging it onto the network.

I've spent more time and detail to explain this than I think you need
because there are others that have expressed interest in this project. I
wanted to share this information with you to hopefully help you realize that
the practical and cost advantages of what I've have done are directly inline
with you concerns.  Hopefully, you will be able to consider some of this for
your project.

 
 
 

Performance of remote office link to main office

Post by Michael Burnfor » Thu, 01 Nov 2001 09:05:33


Pauli

Yes, I have already enquired about ESP8/9 from BT, and it is the cheapest
option for faster connection - if the lines pass their tests. You're right,
BT have to be prodded to talk about this old analogue stuff.

Michael


> Hi Michael,

> From you web address I'm assuming your in the UK

> might be interested in what I'm currently setting up.

> You can purchase a BT ESP9 circuit for 390 a year with 840 connection
> costs (both sites), BT try to keep this under wraps but they are obliged
to
> supply them and they do know that they are used for sdsl.

> http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/current/docs/Private_Cir_/0377.htm

> I have purchased some sdsl (g.sdhl) modems (750 for both, can get cheaper
> where you set ip address with DIP switches, unbelievable but true!!!) and
> theoretically you can get max 2.3Meg on this system, if you get a couple
of
> esp9 (or eps1?) circuits can get modems which will can aggregate to over
> 9meg !!!

> Will know in about a fortnight how it goes, have setup a bdc at the remote
> site with sbs 4.5 at main site

> email me direct in about a fortnight and I can tell you how it goes

> see ya

> --

> *****************************************************
> Remove "junkmailersareidiots" when replying


> > We need to link a remote office (12person) <1mile to the main office
which
> > runs SBS4.5 50-user.
> > Reading these posts and talking with suppliers it seems that we can link
> > them with ISDN (already present in both) and they will both appear on
same
> > LAN. The local exchange does not offer ADSL yet.

> > Is 64k (or even 128k) feasible to use Windows apps (Outlook, Word and
> > Excel)? My experience of using pcAnyWhere and Netmeeting over dialup is
OK
> > for support, but too slow for users - they will keep clicking when
things
> > don't happen at once. And these only transfer screens, keystrokes etc.
But
> > then maybe the screen refreshes are the slow bits and a full client
> running
> > Word etc. locally is much better? And would Terminal Server at the main
> > office be much better?

> > Another option suggested was ISDN to ISP with always on plan to VPN
> through
> > existing 64k leased line and firewall in main office.

> > The total users will soon exceed 50 and it is time to upgrade to W2k
> server
> > on new machine. Also this is a short term solution as the whole company
> will
> > move to one site in a year or so. My own feeling, and from reading these
> > posts, is that one main server is better, or is it better to keep SBS4.5
> in
> > main office and have second W2k in remote?

> > Another thing of course is the internal phones. Can they be connected by
> the
> > same means?

> > I'm confused. Have you real experience of various options, and which is
> > acceptable to normal impatient users over slow connections? Also which
> > option is most effective and economical in hardware and licensing costs.

> > Michael Burnford

 
 
 

Performance of remote office link to main office

Post by Michael Burnfor » Thu, 01 Nov 2001 09:10:15


I got some prices for wireless links - laser and radio - but they were
nearer 7,000 for a pair. I will check SMC.
I can't see one site from the other (trees etc.) but perhaps a walk on the
roof is called for. How exact is "...and that with shorter ranges, line of
sight isn't necessary..."? I would have thought that with radio it was
fairly flexible.

Michael


> It just so happens that within the past couple/few months I've installed
> such a thing.  We have a location across a parking lot (about 300 - 400
> feet) and our options were wireless or dig up the parking lot and run
fiber.
> The wireless was a much less expensive option.  We ordered the SMC EZ
> Connect Wireless Bridge (3 of them) and 3 of their strongest antennae.
The
> antennae say they'll transmit 9 miles with line of sight and that with
> shorter ranges, line of sight isn't necessary.  Like I said, we're about
> 300 - 400 feet and it's working great.  Just plug them into a switch on
each
> end and set them up via their web interface.  Really easy to setup and for
> the 3 units, 3 antennae and 3 cords to go between the unit and the
antennae
> it cost us about $1700.  That was for 3 mind you because we'll have
another
> location early next year that we'll need to use this with as well which
will
> be no more than another 100 feet away.  It's working well...the speed is
> pretty good.  I've got 2 PC's at the remote location running the Internet
> and IBM Client Access Express across it to make use of our AS/400
> mainframe...and they use the AS/400 A LOT!!  I'm happy with it thus far.
I
> got the Unit and Antennae as a bundle from PC Connection (which was a
little
> cheaper than separately) and then added the antennae cables.  You need
some
> sort of stand for the antennae too which you could order, but I just had
our
> maintenance department build me something for that.

> --
> Take Care,
> Rick Bond

> http://www.tcarms.com - Thompson/Center Arms
> http://www.foxridgeoutfitters.com - Fox Ridge Outfitters
> http://www.thompsoninvestmentcasting.com - Thompson Investment Casting



> > Guys,

> >     Why can't you use a wireless lan connection (10mb) if it is indeed
> under
> > 1 mile point to point ?

> > No phone bills, just a couple of access points and a directional antenna
> > mounted on the highest point of each building !

> > any real world info from anyone ?

> > Greg




> > > >We need to link a remote office (12person) <1mile to the main office
> > which
> > > >runs SBS4.5 50-user.
> > > [snip]>
> > > >Is 64k (or even 128k) feasible to use Windows apps (Outlook, Word and
> > > >Excel)? My experience of using pcAnyWhere and Netmeeting over dialup
is
> > OK
> > > >for support, but too slow for users - they will keep clicking when
> things
> > > >don't happen at once. And these only transfer screens, keystrokes
etc.
> > But
> > > >then maybe the screen refreshes are the slow bits and a full client
> > running
> > > >Word etc. locally is much better?

> > > I'm not sure I understand the problem.  You only use the line to
> > > transfer data files.  Outlook, Word, and Excel still runs on your
> > > local machine, so mouse clicks, keystrokes, screen refresh are not
> > > issues.  It's NOT the same as using pcAnywhere or netmeeting.

 
 
 

Performance of remote office link to main office

Post by Jeff Middleton [SBS MVP » Thu, 01 Nov 2001 09:37:00


Zoom also makes something like this with a USA list price of $2000 for a
setup for 2 linked sites.  Haven't used it, just researched it.


> I got some prices for wireless links - laser and radio - but they were
> nearer 7,000 for a pair. I will check SMC.
> I can't see one site from the other (trees etc.) but perhaps a walk on the
> roof is called for. How exact is "...and that with shorter ranges, line of
> sight isn't necessary..."? I would have thought that with radio it was
> fairly flexible.

> Michael



> > It just so happens that within the past couple/few months I've installed
> > such a thing.  We have a location across a parking lot (about 300 - 400
> > feet) and our options were wireless or dig up the parking lot and run
> fiber.
> > The wireless was a much less expensive option.  We ordered the SMC EZ
> > Connect Wireless Bridge (3 of them) and 3 of their strongest antennae.
> The
> > antennae say they'll transmit 9 miles with line of sight and that with
> > shorter ranges, line of sight isn't necessary.  Like I said, we're about
> > 300 - 400 feet and it's working great.  Just plug them into a switch on
> each
> > end and set them up via their web interface.  Really easy to setup and
for
> > the 3 units, 3 antennae and 3 cords to go between the unit and the
> antennae
> > it cost us about $1700.  That was for 3 mind you because we'll have
> another
> > location early next year that we'll need to use this with as well which
> will
> > be no more than another 100 feet away.  It's working well...the speed is
> > pretty good.  I've got 2 PC's at the remote location running the
Internet
> > and IBM Client Access Express across it to make use of our AS/400
> > mainframe...and they use the AS/400 A LOT!!  I'm happy with it thus far.
> I
> > got the Unit and Antennae as a bundle from PC Connection (which was a
> little
> > cheaper than separately) and then added the antennae cables.  You need
> some
> > sort of stand for the antennae too which you could order, but I just had
> our
> > maintenance department build me something for that.

> > --
> > Take Care,
> > Rick Bond

> > http://www.tcarms.com - Thompson/Center Arms
> > http://www.foxridgeoutfitters.com - Fox Ridge Outfitters
> > http://www.thompsoninvestmentcasting.com - Thompson Investment Casting



> > > Guys,

> > >     Why can't you use a wireless lan connection (10mb) if it is indeed
> > under
> > > 1 mile point to point ?

> > > No phone bills, just a couple of access points and a directional
antenna
> > > mounted on the highest point of each building !

> > > any real world info from anyone ?

> > > Greg




> > > > >We need to link a remote office (12person) <1mile to the main
office
> > > which
> > > > >runs SBS4.5 50-user.
> > > > [snip]>
> > > > >Is 64k (or even 128k) feasible to use Windows apps (Outlook, Word
and
> > > > >Excel)? My experience of using pcAnyWhere and Netmeeting over
dialup
> is
> > > OK
> > > > >for support, but too slow for users - they will keep clicking when
> > things
> > > > >don't happen at once. And these only transfer screens, keystrokes
> etc.
> > > But
> > > > >then maybe the screen refreshes are the slow bits and a full client
> > > running
> > > > >Word etc. locally is much better?

> > > > I'm not sure I understand the problem.  You only use the line to
> > > > transfer data files.  Outlook, Word, and Excel still runs on your
> > > > local machine, so mouse clicks, keystrokes, screen refresh are not
> > > > issues.  It's NOT the same as using pcAnywhere or netmeeting.

 
 
 

Performance of remote office link to main office

Post by Paul » Thu, 01 Nov 2001 17:45:18


Did you enquire about a esp1 circuit?

apparently this is a direct link between the sites not going via the
exchange, which will more then likely give the best connection since you
haven't got the extra run to the exchange from both sites

It's just that I've heard that bt don't like installing direct links, harder
for them to troubleshoot problems on the line apparently, or so they say :)

--

*****************************************************
Remove "junkmailersareidiots" when replying

> Pauli

> Yes, I have already enquired about ESP8/9 from BT, and it is the cheapest
> option for faster connection - if the lines pass their tests. You're
right,
> BT have to be prodded to talk about this old analogue stuff.

> Michael



> > Hi Michael,

> > From you web address I'm assuming your in the UK

> > might be interested in what I'm currently setting up.

> > You can purchase a BT ESP9 circuit for 390 a year with 840 connection
> > costs (both sites), BT try to keep this under wraps but they are obliged
> to
> > supply them and they do know that they are used for sdsl.

> > http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/current/docs/Private_Cir_/0377.htm

> > I have purchased some sdsl (g.sdhl) modems (750 for both, can get
cheaper
> > where you set ip address with DIP switches, unbelievable but true!!!)
and
> > theoretically you can get max 2.3Meg on this system, if you get a couple
> of
> > esp9 (or eps1?) circuits can get modems which will can aggregate to over
> > 9meg !!!

> > Will know in about a fortnight how it goes, have setup a bdc at the
remote
> > site with sbs 4.5 at main site

> > email me direct in about a fortnight and I can tell you how it goes

> > see ya

> > --

> > *****************************************************
> > Remove "junkmailersareidiots" when replying


> > > We need to link a remote office (12person) <1mile to the main office
> which
> > > runs SBS4.5 50-user.
> > > Reading these posts and talking with suppliers it seems that we can
link
> > > them with ISDN (already present in both) and they will both appear on
> same
> > > LAN. The local exchange does not offer ADSL yet.

> > > Is 64k (or even 128k) feasible to use Windows apps (Outlook, Word and
> > > Excel)? My experience of using pcAnyWhere and Netmeeting over dialup
is
> OK
> > > for support, but too slow for users - they will keep clicking when
> things
> > > don't happen at once. And these only transfer screens, keystrokes etc.
> But
> > > then maybe the screen refreshes are the slow bits and a full client
> > running
> > > Word etc. locally is much better? And would Terminal Server at the
main
> > > office be much better?

> > > Another option suggested was ISDN to ISP with always on plan to VPN
> > through
> > > existing 64k leased line and firewall in main office.

> > > The total users will soon exceed 50 and it is time to upgrade to W2k
> > server
> > > on new machine. Also this is a short term solution as the whole
company
> > will
> > > move to one site in a year or so. My own feeling, and from reading
these
> > > posts, is that one main server is better, or is it better to keep
SBS4.5
> > in
> > > main office and have second W2k in remote?

> > > Another thing of course is the internal phones. Can they be connected
by
> > the
> > > same means?

> > > I'm confused. Have you real experience of various options, and which
is
> > > acceptable to normal impatient users over slow connections? Also which
> > > option is most effective and economical in hardware and licensing
costs.

> > > Michael Burnford

 
 
 

1. SBS Exchange between main & Remote offices

My main Office is running MS SBS 4.0.  We have just opening a branch office.
We want to pass interoffice email between the two offices using a dialup
connection that automaticaly dials from the remote office to the main office
several times a day.  How would we go about this using Exchange server that
comes with SBS?

We are not using any kind of Internet email and don't have any real plans to
to add it in the future.

2. Question about LONG-fields

3. Feedback on linking remote offices successfully

4. Long lines in \twocolumn

5. slow link clients in remote office

6. win2kpro network access

7. linking NT over a t1 link between two offices

8. What's this game?

9. Connecting a Small Office to Main Server SBS 4.5

10. How to setup Multiple Offices with one Main Server

11. Advice please - Main office running SBS2000 with internet connection want to add remote home-office with internet connection

12. Office to Office VPN

13. Back office fax server 4.5 with office 2000