locked
Alternatives to 10-icense Limit? RRS feed

  • Question

  • I started using WHS in my small business because it was easy to deploy, with no headaches of server admin.  However, I never knew the business would grow to more than 10 concurrent users.  Now, if everyone is working, I have a problem of some people not being able to connect to the data.

    In addition to using WHS as backup for the computers and storing files, WHS hosts data for two main programs that use Mcrosoft Access databases in multiuser access mode.

    I read in another thread that there is no way to buy more licenses for WHS since the 10-sea limit is hard-coded.  What are my options?  If I upgrade to Standard Server 2003 or SBS 2003, I will lose some finctionality that I love, including integrated KV backup, Avast WHS, etc.  Not to mention the hassle factor of administering a sever correctly and securely. 

    Help?

    Tuesday, May 12, 2009 5:12 AM

Answers

  • Hi,
    thats why WHS spells Windows Home Server. (Although I agree, that a possibility to raise the limit would be nice.)

    If you put a second WHS into your network, this box could also backup up to 10 PCs and give up to 10 user accounts a home directory on the server.
    Since the incoming connections (in comparision to Windows XP Pro as server replacement) are not capped, the users from the second server could also access a folder on the first server, if you use a generic user name (maybe Team) with password to connect to the team share or other common shares on the first server and configure this on each client of the second group in the stored Network passwords for each user for accessing server). Never tested this, gives also some administrative overhead on client site. And storing passwords works not on the Home Editions of Windows, here a script to map the drive with included user account and password would be the convenient, but unsecure solution.

    If your structure is growing so unexpected, you should consider an Active Directory infrastructure, either based on the new Windows Server 2008 foundation (capped at 15 client licenses) or on Windows Small Business Server 2008. (Do you a favour and do not use the old Windows Server 2003 version any more - support fades and the features and handling have been much improved in the new server versions.)

    This would allow you to have central user management, central file and printer sharing, while you can still backup the clients (and eventually the server) to your home server(s). Although this kind of backup is not enough for saving your data, if it comes to a real catastrophic scenario, like heavy overvoltage in the entire office, fire, theft ...

    Best greetings from Germany
    Olaf
    Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:26 AM
    Moderator
  • This is really not the right place for a course in enterprise server management, but in general you would have a couple of options. 

    First, as soon as you exceed the "10 user limit" you are in the land of serious tradeoffs. Windows Home Server doesn't support domain security at all (joining it with a domain will cause it to start rebooting every hour, though it will coexist on a network with a domain as long as it isn't part of the domain) so you're stuck with separately manging security on every server. And SBS doesn't have the backup tools.

    Your best option is probably a flavor of Windows Server 2008; I agree with Olaf that the SBS version (even though more expensive) is a better choice. You're really too large to want to manage multiple small servers, even if you're willing to invest in the equipment. And you're large enough that some of the other features of SBS will be very useful to you.

    The other main option is to buy one WHS PC per 10 (or fewer) users. Each user has a "home" server, and then there can be a folder (Public?) on each server that everyone can get to, for sharing . You would want to enable the Guest account (with no password) on all servers and grant that account full access to the designated folder on that server.

    The downside with the SBS route is that you don't get the WHS backup tools. However, there's nothing stopping you from installing one WHS per 10 (or fewer) users and using them just for backups. Cost per seat is lower than just about any small business oriented backup technology I'm aware of. A number of SBS consultants do exactly this. You would be using the WHS computers in a "set it and forget it" mode in this case...

    The obvious downside with the multi-WHS option is that you have to manage each server separately.

    Have you considered finding a SBS consultant and outsourcing your IT? Considering your stated growth rate and size, it may be a good idea, and may reduce your total costs significantly (because you'll have a steep learning curve no matter what you do if you do it yourself).

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:08 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • Addnedum: I also like the mirroring in the HP WHS box, which seems to be a WHS and not RAID function?  That means I will have to get a new server box with RAID as well if I use Server 2003!
    Tuesday, May 12, 2009 5:14 AM
  • Hi,
    thats why WHS spells Windows Home Server. (Although I agree, that a possibility to raise the limit would be nice.)

    If you put a second WHS into your network, this box could also backup up to 10 PCs and give up to 10 user accounts a home directory on the server.
    Since the incoming connections (in comparision to Windows XP Pro as server replacement) are not capped, the users from the second server could also access a folder on the first server, if you use a generic user name (maybe Team) with password to connect to the team share or other common shares on the first server and configure this on each client of the second group in the stored Network passwords for each user for accessing server). Never tested this, gives also some administrative overhead on client site. And storing passwords works not on the Home Editions of Windows, here a script to map the drive with included user account and password would be the convenient, but unsecure solution.

    If your structure is growing so unexpected, you should consider an Active Directory infrastructure, either based on the new Windows Server 2008 foundation (capped at 15 client licenses) or on Windows Small Business Server 2008. (Do you a favour and do not use the old Windows Server 2003 version any more - support fades and the features and handling have been much improved in the new server versions.)

    This would allow you to have central user management, central file and printer sharing, while you can still backup the clients (and eventually the server) to your home server(s). Although this kind of backup is not enough for saving your data, if it comes to a real catastrophic scenario, like heavy overvoltage in the entire office, fire, theft ...

    Best greetings from Germany
    Olaf
    Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:26 AM
    Moderator
  • Thank you but I am totally confused.

    I in fact do have a second identical WHS which I was going to use as a backup.  I was going to sync it as presented in WHShacks. 

    Currently, as each user connect to the first WHS, they log on, and their logon information is passed to the first server (I presume by their Windows user name and password) and their previously mapped WHS subdirectory appears as a drive.

    If I add a second server onto the network, how does the first server know any different?  Users would still connect to the first server and presumably pass the same authentication information to the first server, and be capped at ten users?

    Thanks.
    Tuesday, May 12, 2009 2:30 PM
  • This is really not the right place for a course in enterprise server management, but in general you would have a couple of options. 

    First, as soon as you exceed the "10 user limit" you are in the land of serious tradeoffs. Windows Home Server doesn't support domain security at all (joining it with a domain will cause it to start rebooting every hour, though it will coexist on a network with a domain as long as it isn't part of the domain) so you're stuck with separately manging security on every server. And SBS doesn't have the backup tools.

    Your best option is probably a flavor of Windows Server 2008; I agree with Olaf that the SBS version (even though more expensive) is a better choice. You're really too large to want to manage multiple small servers, even if you're willing to invest in the equipment. And you're large enough that some of the other features of SBS will be very useful to you.

    The other main option is to buy one WHS PC per 10 (or fewer) users. Each user has a "home" server, and then there can be a folder (Public?) on each server that everyone can get to, for sharing . You would want to enable the Guest account (with no password) on all servers and grant that account full access to the designated folder on that server.

    The downside with the SBS route is that you don't get the WHS backup tools. However, there's nothing stopping you from installing one WHS per 10 (or fewer) users and using them just for backups. Cost per seat is lower than just about any small business oriented backup technology I'm aware of. A number of SBS consultants do exactly this. You would be using the WHS computers in a "set it and forget it" mode in this case...

    The obvious downside with the multi-WHS option is that you have to manage each server separately.

    Have you considered finding a SBS consultant and outsourcing your IT? Considering your stated growth rate and size, it may be a good idea, and may reduce your total costs significantly (because you'll have a steep learning curve no matter what you do if you do it yourself).

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:08 PM
    Moderator
  • Thank you.  I think I will get SBS and a consultant.  I will still miss the simplicity and backup capabilities of WHS.

    In the meantime, if I enable the Guest account with no password, and enable access of a shared folder by Guest, will all 12 computers be able to map that folder and access it concurrently?

    Thanks again.
    Tuesday, May 12, 2009 5:27 PM
  • Yes, they should be able to.

    And as I said, you can add Windows Home Server to an SBS network as a backup tool. As such, it's less expensive per workstation backed up than just about any centrally managed backup tool out there.

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Tuesday, May 12, 2009 5:37 PM
    Moderator
  • In the meantime, if I enable the Guest account with no password, and enable access of a shared folder by Guest, will all 12 computers be able to map that folder and access it concurrently?

    they would also be (if you don't want to use the guest account, which may be a security issue), if you create one user account for all users, which are not on the same server and grant him the permissions.
    Then, if the normal user is logged on on his client (assuming he has an account on server1 only and needs to access the common share on server2, to which an user account with the name TeamUser has been granted access), click Start/Run and enter control keymgr.dll.
    Here you can add a connection to server2 with the credentials server2\TeamUser and his password, which allows you to map and access the common shared folder within the users profile. (This works only on the Pro versions of Windows XP and Vista, not on the home editions.) On the later one you could create a batch containing the line
    net use X: \\server2\common /user:server2\TeamUser password
    (replace the share name common with the share you wish to map for the team members and password with either the real password for that TeamUser account or the asterisk *, which would ask each time for typing that password) and put this batch file into the Startup folder in the users Start Menu.

    This especially under the experience, which some users had after enabling the guest account and the clients after that connecting as guest with limited permissions to the home shares.

    Best greetings from Germany
    Olaf
    Tuesday, May 12, 2009 6:59 PM
    Moderator