To PDC or Not to PDC.. That is the question?

[radman]

To All Technical/Network Gurus -- here's a curve ball for ya!

Where would it necessitate promoting a Windows 2000 Server from 'Simple Member Server' to a 'Primary Domain Controller' when the SMS is the only server on the network? And why would someone make that recomendation when there are no plans to add additional servers to the LAN?

I'm asking this because I set up a Simple Member Server for a client and it was recently recomended by someone that he should be running the server as a Primary Domain Controller, NOT as a simple member server, which is the way it's been working for the past 6 months. Why bother setting up a Domain if no other servers exist on the network? What's the advantage if there are no plans to add any additional server (or BDC's) to this tiny, 10 client workgroup? I don't understand the reasoning behind this guy's recomendation except that he's trying to steal my client away and prevent me from eating by recomending a non-crucual albiet a far-more complex LAN methodology when it's simply not required.

My client asked me what the benifits would be to F-Disk his current Windows 2000 Small Business Server and install Windows 2000 ADVANCED Server instead, then install and promote the server to the role of Primary Domain Controller. I don't see any point in doing this?

I know that Win2k Small Biz Server can be promoted to PDC like Win2k Advanced Server, so I don't need to be told that, I'm just saying in here the way my client asked. Even if I were to promote the OS he already has, I still don't know what the purpose would be since his Member Server is working just fine.

Unless there are other reasons for which my client has yet to discuss with me, or if he's just trying to match my knowledge against this other IT guy, I just might lose this client because I cannot honestly recomend messing with a PDC where it's just not needed, unless of course I was being an unethical shark like this other guy appears to be and just trying to make the network super complex in order to generate more work and give myself a manufactured reason to bill more invoices.

So anyone got advice or am I in the dark here not knowing what to do or say?

Regards,
RadMan, Portland, Oregon

PS: I decided to ask you guys here first since the explinations everyone seems to give on these forums always seem more honest and to the point than the other bazillion tech forums available out there. Hand down, you guys rule.

7:15 PM, June 11th, 2003

[Nighthawk]

I thought Small Business Server consisted of 2K server (non-advanced), SQL, Exchange, and some other stuff (renamed BackOffice), so it could be promoted just fine.

I'd say if it works now, and the network isn't planning any changes, I'd just leave it alone. If there's only one server, it's obviously mission-critical and you don't want it out of action at all.

I'm not sure about what all a Simple Member Server can do, but I know that with a domain you can do group policies and active directory, which can be handy.

[SeanC]

For only 10 clients. Don't bother. One of the main reasons to upgrade from a workgroup to a domain is to have centralized management and organization of network logins and greater control of resources.

I've always thought that if you get to 15 or 20 workstations, it's time for a domain. Maintaining shares between systems and everything else gets to be a huge headache.

When I started at my work, I had to upgrade the office of 100+ workstations to a domain model. The previous admin had everything running on a WORKGROUP with almost 150 PCs. I was just dumbfounded that that guy hadn't gone insane.

Sean

[cbuddha42]

most features on domain sever system are geared to working with very large numbers of accounts - not 10

only reason to upgrade would be it takes time and would probably result in more maintance time all of which you could charge for

other IT guy is just tryin to see if he can steal your clients by throwing big stuff you dont do around and convincing them they need someone who can handle it

One thing you didn't post was: was does the server serve? Is it just a file/print server, or does it do other stuff?

If it's just a simple little office file/print server, and all the IP's are manually set in the few clients, no need at all for a PDC, AFAIC.

But is sorta depends on what you expect from the server. Does it do DNS for a routed net connection? Does it server intranet webpages to the clients? Does it have third-party messaging / productivity software to serve? What network growth is to be expected medium-term?

The more complex the roles the server needs to play, the more likely more advanced networking capability is essential.

I'm no guru, though, but that's my opinion.

Where is DVNT1? His opinion should carry a bit of weight in this!

Cheers
Mick

[PresterJohn]

>SMS is the only server on the network

let's start off by clarifying something...do not refer to a member server as SMS. SMS commonly refers to a different microsoft product - Systems Management Server. to use that acronym to apply to a member server will paint you in a negative light among the technical crowd...which will not endear you to clients (you must always assume a cient is technically knowledgeable). if they ask for an explanation, fine...explain it, but never think otherwise.

in fact, that server you are running in pure 'microsoft' terminology is not really even a member server...it is really a Workgroup server. you are still running a peer-to-peer network despite the fact that one of your computers is running a server OS.

the description of the client's environment omitted some important information which begs the question(s)...what functions/services is hosted on that server? are you using it merely for file & print services or are you running email,etc on the box.

given the size of the network (10 users), it is generally recommended that you set up a domain rather than a workgroup. a domain facilitates many typical network administration taskd as well as providing additional functionality such as group policies, AD, etc.

[cbuddha42]

i got the impression it was just a file server

oh well guess i should have asked

[vass0922]

Do realize that a domain will require a bit more work as well... its not all fun and games..
You will have to put in a active directory, which requires a dns server as well.

If the company isn't planning on growing anytime soon may as well remain a workgroup as there doesn't seem to be any benefit for you unless you want a tighter control over the network.

oh and minor note...
in Active Directory there is no 'PDC' or 'BDC' those are NT4 domains.. in AD every domain controller is equal as a domain controller.. with one server just being a little more equal than the rest

[DVNT1]

There are several mentioned points I definitely agree with:

...with an AD domain you can do group policies and active directory...

...One of the main reasons to upgrade from a workgroup to a domain is to have centralized management and organization of network logins and greater control of resources...

...But is sorta depends on what you expect from the server...

...you are running in pure 'microsoft' terminology is not really even a member server...it is really a Workgroup server. you are still running a peer-to-peer network despite the fact that one of your computers is running a server OS...

...Do realize that a domain will require a bit more work as well... its not all fun and games...

...in AD every domain controller is equal as a domain controller.. with one server (or a few) being a little more equal than the rest...

As for what's best for you, my best guess on what you said so far is that an AD domain would bring some benefits but they would be outweighed by the additional costs associated with more tech support fees.

That's my 2cents anyway. BTW, as a TechIMOer, thanks for the kudos to our site.