G
Guest
Good Day All,
I have just started to work for a relatively big company. About 500
computers and 600 users. I am glancing around on the server configs and how
the global groups are structured. I notice that the senior network Admin
created about 100 Global groups and she added users in each global group.
Many if not all users belong to more than 1 global group. And then she
assigns permissions to ressources on the network by adding the global group
to the security tab of the ressource.
According to Microsoft I am suppose to add users to a global group and then
add the global group to a local group and assign permissions to ressources to
the local group. Now i really do not see a difference in both strategies
other than the Microsoft way I would have to do more configuration by
creating a local group.
What is the advantage by doing it the Microsoft way compatred to the other
way? Is it less work, less management etc... . Please can someone explain
this to me.
Many thanks,
Tacobell2000
I have just started to work for a relatively big company. About 500
computers and 600 users. I am glancing around on the server configs and how
the global groups are structured. I notice that the senior network Admin
created about 100 Global groups and she added users in each global group.
Many if not all users belong to more than 1 global group. And then she
assigns permissions to ressources on the network by adding the global group
to the security tab of the ressource.
According to Microsoft I am suppose to add users to a global group and then
add the global group to a local group and assign permissions to ressources to
the local group. Now i really do not see a difference in both strategies
other than the Microsoft way I would have to do more configuration by
creating a local group.
What is the advantage by doing it the Microsoft way compatred to the other
way? Is it less work, less management etc... . Please can someone explain
this to me.
Many thanks,
Tacobell2000