Guys,

I have a small network with about eight computers. We are jumping to 12. I
have one central application that works off of a mapped drive. The
application data is only about 200MB in size and the app is very
lightweight.

Right now everyone uses one login and password. I have a share of the data
directory named share. This is the only thing the server does is share this
directory. It does have a printer hanging off of it but only because it is
closest to the printer.

Because everyone uses the same name and password do I really need to load
AD? I would like to use AD but do I really need to install it. It is a
little more headache to install but is there any real reason to install AD.
Does it handle file requests any differently?

Thanks,

Brad Wilson
(E-Mail Removed)

Does it handle file requests any differently?

No it doesn't really. You can add shared folder within Active Directory to
define keywords used to search from them, How ever the reason I can see here
is if you want to setup accounts for each person and get more control of the
network.

--
Regards,

Christoffer Andersson
No email replies please - reply in the newsgroup
If the information was help full, you can let me know at:
http://www.itsystem.se/employers.asp?ID=1

"me" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i meddelandet
news:%23IsLFFw%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Guys,
>
> I have a small network with about eight computers. We are jumping to 12.
I
> have one central application that works off of a mapped drive. The
> application data is only about 200MB in size and the app is very
> lightweight.
>
> Right now everyone uses one login and password. I have a share of the
data
> directory named share. This is the only thing the server does is share
this
> directory. It does have a printer hanging off of it but only because it
is
> closest to the printer.
>
> Because everyone uses the same name and password do I really need to load
> AD? I would like to use AD but do I really need to install it. It is a
> little more headache to install but is there any real reason to install
AD.
> Does it handle file requests any differently?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brad Wilson
> (E-Mail Removed)
>
>

The main advantage is centralized control and security. With twelve
computers, it's probably worth it. You also get login scripts, group
policies, etc....I wouldn't want everyone using the same account, myself.

me wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I have a small network with about eight computers. We are jumping to
> 12. I have one central application that works off of a mapped drive.
> The application data is only about 200MB in size and the app is very
> lightweight.
>
> Right now everyone uses one login and password. I have a share of
> the data directory named share. This is the only thing the server
> does is share this directory. It does have a printer hanging off of
> it but only because it is closest to the printer.
>
> Because everyone uses the same name and password do I really need to
> load AD? I would like to use AD but do I really need to install it.
> It is a little more headache to install but is there any real reason
> to install AD. Does it handle file requests any differently?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brad Wilson
> (E-Mail Removed)

"me" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:#IsLFFw#(E-Mail Removed)...
> Guys,
>
> I have a small network with about eight computers. We are jumping to 12.
I
> have one central application that works off of a mapped drive. The
> application data is only about 200MB in size and the app is very
> lightweight.
>
> Right now everyone uses one login and password. I have a share of the
data
> directory named share. This is the only thing the server does is share
this
> directory. It does have a printer hanging off of it but only because it
is
> closest to the printer.
>
> Because everyone uses the same name and password do I really need to load
> AD? I would like to use AD but do I really need to install it. It is a
> little more headache to install but is there any real reason to install
AD.
> Does it handle file requests any differently?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brad Wilson
> (E-Mail Removed)
>

If what you have now fullfills your needs, don't use AD. AD can add a lot of
traffic for a network thats not equipped for it. If yours is a situation
where security needs not be centralized, and where you can't provide a
second DC for redundancy, don't install it.

SaltPeter wrote:
> "me" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:#IsLFFw#(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Guys,
>>
>> I have a small network with about eight computers. We are jumping
>> to 12. I have one central application that works off of a mapped
>> drive. The application data is only about 200MB in size and the app
>> is very lightweight.
>>
>> Right now everyone uses one login and password. I have a share of
>> the data directory named share. This is the only thing the server
>> does is share this directory. It does have a printer hanging off of
>> it but only because it is closest to the printer.
>>
>> Because everyone uses the same name and password do I really need to
>> load AD? I would like to use AD but do I really need to install it.
>> It is a little more headache to install but is there any real reason
>> to install AD. Does it handle file requests any differently?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Brad Wilson
>> (E-Mail Removed)
>>
>
> If what you have now fullfills your needs, don't use AD. AD can add a
> lot of traffic for a network thats not equipped for it. If yours is a
> situation where security needs not be centralized, and where you
> can't provide a second DC for redundancy, don't install it.

Less traffic in the sense that it isn't relying on broadcast for name
resolution, actually. ]
Even if you can't put in a second DC, if you do good backups, I think it's
easier.

"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:O$b1ToC$(E-Mail Removed)...
> SaltPeter wrote:
> > "me" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:#IsLFFw#(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Guys,
> >>
> >> I have a small network with about eight computers. We are jumping
> >> to 12. I have one central application that works off of a mapped
> >> drive. The application data is only about 200MB in size and the app
> >> is very lightweight.
> >>
> >> Right now everyone uses one login and password. I have a share of
> >> the data directory named share. This is the only thing the server
> >> does is share this directory. It does have a printer hanging off of
> >> it but only because it is closest to the printer.
> >>
> >> Because everyone uses the same name and password do I really need to
> >> load AD? I would like to use AD but do I really need to install it.
> >> It is a little more headache to install but is there any real reason
> >> to install AD. Does it handle file requests any differently?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Brad Wilson
> >> (E-Mail Removed)
> >>
> >
> > If what you have now fullfills your needs, don't use AD. AD can add a
> > lot of traffic for a network thats not equipped for it. If yours is a
> > situation where security needs not be centralized, and where you
> > can't provide a second DC for redundancy, don't install it.
>
> Less traffic in the sense that it isn't relying on broadcast for name
> resolution, actually. ]

Only if the user is moving from a non-DNS, non-Wins environment. But you do
have a point in the case the user is running a server in a workgroup without
a name resolution server.

> Even if you can't put in a second DC, if you do good backups, I think it's
> easier.
>

While i'm a big fan of AD and centralized administration, honestly, 12 users
does not warrant installing AD. Unless security is a concern, managing such
an AD environment might prove to be overkill. If the user had said something
else than "the app is very
lightweight" and "only thing the server does" then i would have mentioned
otherwise.

To each his own :-)
I have a couple of 5-user offices running AD. Requires less admin than when
they were on workgroup configs.

SaltPeter wrote:
> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> message news:O$b1ToC$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> SaltPeter wrote:
>>> "me" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:#IsLFFw#(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Guys,
>>>>
>>>> I have a small network with about eight computers. We are jumping
>>>> to 12. I have one central application that works off of a mapped
>>>> drive. The application data is only about 200MB in size and the
>>>> app is very lightweight.
>>>>
>>>> Right now everyone uses one login and password. I have a share of
>>>> the data directory named share. This is the only thing the server
>>>> does is share this directory. It does have a printer hanging off
>>>> of it but only because it is closest to the printer.
>>>>
>>>> Because everyone uses the same name and password do I really need
>>>> to load AD? I would like to use AD but do I really need to
>>>> install it. It is a little more headache to install but is there
>>>> any real reason to install AD. Does it handle file requests any
>>>> differently?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Brad Wilson
>>>> (E-Mail Removed)
>>>>
>>>
>>> If what you have now fullfills your needs, don't use AD. AD can add
>>> a lot of traffic for a network thats not equipped for it. If yours
>>> is a situation where security needs not be centralized, and where
>>> you can't provide a second DC for redundancy, don't install it.
>>
>> Less traffic in the sense that it isn't relying on broadcast for name
>> resolution, actually. ]
>
> Only if the user is moving from a non-DNS, non-Wins environment. But
> you do have a point in the case the user is running a server in a
> workgroup without a name resolution server.
>
>> Even if you can't put in a second DC, if you do good backups, I
>> think it's easier.
>>
>
> While i'm a big fan of AD and centralized administration, honestly,
> 12 users does not warrant installing AD. Unless security is a
> concern, managing such an AD environment might prove to be overkill.
> If the user had said something else than "the app is very
> lightweight" and "only thing the server does" then i would have
> mentioned otherwise.