Remote Web Workspace

J

Jay_2

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 20, 2006
Messages
3,583
I run 4 networks for one company (1 is based at HQ where my main server room is)

At the moment each network is separate (each has its own domain controller) and I wish to change this.

To do any backups I currently have to drive from site to site and if a person moves from site to site I manually have to copy data from server to server. Its killing me!

Recently also a lot of people need to work at a different site every day and this is causing lots of problems.

My idea at first was to setup a Terminal service server at HQ and getting some decent switches with VPN to dial into HQ from each site (Spider style) but I have recently been pointed to SBS 2003. This has a service called Remote Web Workspace.

Now as the 3 external sites have a hot desk situation (4 PCs max at each site) my new plan is to set headless work stations in the HQ server room and allowing the users on each of the sites to basically use there current PCs (using a router with DHCP) to connect to the network at HQ via this method (like remote desktop)

Has anyone here ever used this "Remote Web Workspace" (RWW)? Will it do what i want? Anyone got any better ideas? (Citrix is out due to the cost)

thanks
 
Remote Web Workspaces is basically the SBS name for Sharepoint Services (included in Windows Server 2003). There may be some extra bells and whistles in RWW, but I don't recall any.

OK, you've got 1 HQ location and 3 remote sites? The three remote sites each have only about 4 PC's and a Domain Controller for a separate domain? What are the accounts in the small domains used for?

If you want to do things "right" then you're going to need some kind of connection between the offices. VPN over the Internet is a reasonably inexpensive way to accomplish this. (If you keep all offices with the same ISP, then you'll keep latency to a minimum as well.)

Then you're going to need to dissamble the AD controllers at the remote sites. You'll need to decide whether you need to save the accounts or not... If you do, MS has tools that would allow you to migrate them to the HQ domain. If you don't need them, that makes life all the easier...

Those are some pretty broad steps, and we haven't even gotten to the most effecient way for folks at the remote sites to access their information... for that we probably need more info on the types of apps they're using and the types and amount of files they're saving...
 
I intend to pull all the old servers from each site and get some routers with DHCP and VPN this should allow the systems to have connection to the HQ

The systems will only be using office so this should work over RDP - light report writing.

I will then simply setup the new users on the 2003 Domain at the HQ

The only issue is there will be about 60 -70 users. (only about 10 on at any one time as its a hot desk situation)

The users at HQ will simply log on to the local domain as usual.
 
It sounds like the remote sites have broadband already. And since you already have servers in place, why not just use DFS?
 
due to bandwith issues. That will not be fast enough and also will eat up even a 4meg/4meg SDSL ( we would probably need a lease line for this)
 
Jay_oasis said:
due to bandwith issues. That will not be fast enough and also will eat up even a 4meg/4meg SDSL ( we would probably need a lease line for this)
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite. Only the changes are replicated back to HQ, and if you are working with just office documents you will be fine. Unless you plan on having some huge office documents/excel files.

The RDP idea will work, and I have set up a client like that. Only downside is there is no fault tollerence with that.

But either way will work.
 
hmmm

maybe i have miss read about this option then.... been years since I have looked at it to be honest.

is there any good documents on how to set this up correctly?
 
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/library/14211e1f-2dbd-418d-b721-2005c725ce351033.mspx?mfr=true

Video

Your initial DFS sync might be big depending on how much data you have, but after that you are good to go. If you have alot of data/files you might want to during the weekend, bring one remote server to HQ and let it sync there. Then drive it back to the remote site and connect it back up.

You will still need to setup VPN at each site and at HQ, but you should be fine using Routing & Remote Access for that.
 
jpochedl said:
Remote Web Workspaces is basically the SBS name for Sharepoint Services (included in Windows Server 2003). There may be some extra bells and whistles in RWW, but I don't recall any.
Click to expand...

Remote Web Workplace is NOT the name of Sharepoint Services. Rather it allows the remote access of remote desktop enabled computers or servers via a web browser in addition to Outlook Web Access. No other product Microsoft puts out has this functionality.

Jay_oasis said:
The only issue is there will be about 60 -70 users. (only about 10 on at any one time as its a hot desk situation).
Click to expand...

If you know your not going to exceed 75 computers (for the entire AD infrastructure) in the near future (think 5 years), then SBS could be a worthwhile investment.

You can use RWW to allow staff to log into a terminal server.

On another note, you might want to checkout Citrix's Access Essentials which is a low cost alternative to a Citrix farm.

Thin client computing can be done, but we need to know more about what applications the users need on a regular basis.
 
i'll try a test of this on Monday (i run two networks the other is a full Citrix network so its easy)

I'll post back.

Thanks mate!
 
I doubt it will ever get over 50 PCs in the next 5 years to be honest, its all hot desks. I guess it could get up to 90 users at some point.
 
Jay_oasis said:
I doubt it will ever get over 50 PCs in the next 5 years to be honest, its all hot desks. I guess it could get up to 90 users at some point.
Click to expand...

SBS limits the number of user or device CALs you can install. IOW if you install device CALs then you can have a maximum of 75 computers regardless of the number of users.

Or if you install user CALs, your limited to 75 users. The majority of the time you would use device CALs.

The total number of device and/or user CALs combined cannot exceed 75 at anytime.
 
we should never go over that (not for a long time anyway)

We can write the systems off in 3 - 4 years

lol

so I'll install per device and not per seat and i can have as many user as I want but only a max of 75 concurrent connected devices.

do you this it would be best going RWW or DFS?
 
Jay_oasis said:
so I'll install per device and not per seat and i can have as many user as I want but only a max of 75 concurrent connected devices.

do you this it would be best going RWW or DFS?
Click to expand...

Every solution has it's pros and cons which have to be weighed heavily against one another to determine what will work, be cost effective, and work for the business.

For example DFS does not allow for locking of files so there is a chance two people can be working on the exact same document (albeit different copies on different servers) which can result in one person's work being overwritten by another.

Terminal Services however it is a central point of failure for your remote offices unless you plan on having a load balanced cluster.

RWW is another option, but yet again, it is a central point of failure for remote offices.

What your asking usually requires quite a bit of Q/A in order to determine your existing environment and where you would like to be in a couple years and cannot be summed up in a few short posts.
 
well the existing environment consists of Low end Dell servers at each site

At the main HQ we have 2 Dell 1600SC desktop servers that could be put to some use.

Although each Office is on its own domain with its own domain controller they are all on different subnets (just incase I needed to do anything like this)

To be honest I am looking at scrapping the old servers each of the sites as they are getting quite old now, they would probably be setup in a test network (if any problems arise with the main network I like to have a test network to try and replicate the fault, its also useful to test software installs etc)

So what I was thinking was having a couple of decent rack servers 1 DC 1 fileserver and an external tape drive to back them both up. I would also have 10 new PCs that I will run headless. Each PC that is in the server room will correspond to a PC that is out in the offices.

Then I would install 10 systems in the sites (probably very small Matx systems) with a crippled version of WindowsXP that is locked down and auto logs into a local account. Each system in each office will log into the corresponding system in the HQ server room. This means that no matter what person sits at that desk they can get there work (even if they are primarily based at another site)

Currently we have about 120 staff all in all. They all need to write 1 report a month (there main job is not a desk job)

I would say that about 20 - 30 of them are based at HQ and would use the domain as a local users.

The company is growing but currently we only have about 40 PCs in total, this is taking into account a new building that is currently in construction (as I said only about 20 staff are desk workers)

I would think that in 5 years we would have grown but its taken us about 10 years to get to this size so I doubt we would have doubled in size again in another 5 years.
 
Jay_oasis said:
So what I was thinking was having a couple of decent rack servers 1 DC 1 fileserver and an external tape drive to back them both up. I would also have 10 new PCs that I will run headless. Each PC that is in the server room will correspond to a PC that is out in the offices.

Then I would install 10 systems in the sites (probably very small Matx systems) with a crippled version of WindowsXP that is locked down and auto logs into a local account. Each system in each office will log into the corresponding system in the HQ server room. This means that no matter what person sits at that desk they can get there work (even if they are primarily based at another site)
Click to expand...

There is no need to install 10 headless XP workstations if you use a terminal server. Each remote user would be logging into their own profile on the terminal server. Instead of buying PCs and locking them down, you could purchase thin clients that will do the same thing with less overhead.

The only issue with doing things remotely is the satellite office is dependent on the site to site connection working. If the connection is down, then the remote site cannot do any work on the computer. Likewise if the terminal server itself has an issue, then it affects all remote users.

While on one hand a distributed environment can be more resilient, it is more costly to support and maintain. A thin client environment offers less complexity and cost, but at a higher risk to the general business operations at the remote sites.

I don't believe anyone here will tell you which direction to setup your network without having alot more technical and business information available. Costs, reliability, stability, and ease of administration all need to be factored into the solution with input from upper management on the risks they are willing to accept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top