Any Linux box can be used as a server--the UNIX model, after all, was designed from the ground up to be multi-user and multi-tasking and networking is extremely flexible.
The networking scheme used in Windows was, I think, originally patterned after specific network operating systems such as Novell Netware--which always used dedicated servers. Obviously, you can if you wish have machines dedicated as servers in a UNIX or Linux environment, but that is usually simply composed of machines with more storage available, with its processor and memory being able to be totally directed to storage and retrieval of files and the access to them. Usually, with such a server setup, the machine would not be running a GUI simply to have more performance for doing its tasks. However, in a small network it is common for a very fast workstation to also serve as a server--sometimes with "smart terminals" attached such as with the Linux Terminal Server Project.
The latter has the advantage of consolidating file services, making administration somewhat easier--since files are housed on one machine, for example, a backup will get everything at one time with no concerns about what may be on various individual machines that could be lost if the machine failed.
In some cases, rather than purchasing dedicated smart terminal machines, people may use older machines with limited storage themselves, keeping most of their actual files on a machine which is acting as a server for them.
Should you run into a discussion of the xserver, by the way, note that this uses terms that are reversed from the usual--the X "server" is what creates the GUI display, while the X "client" is the machien containing the files. The X protocol was created specifically so that the client and server can easily be on separate machines--this is exactly what happens with a smart terminal--but in that case the file server is the X client, and an attached terminal is both a file services client and an X server. A bit confusing until you know the reasons behind it.
Thus, to respond to your original question--a home or small business network does not need a "domain controller" unless it has networked Windows boxes. In that case, a Linux box with SAMBA installed can serve as either a domain controller or a primary domain controller for the Windows boxes there...thus avoiding the relatively large cost of a Windows Server license.
David
--- In LINUX_Newbies@yahoogroups.com, "novicegeek" <acss82@...> wrote:
>
> We all know that in a Windows network, we have a domain controller that acts as a main server along with other workstation computers. They are all connected to a switch.
>
> How about a Linux or Unix network? How different is its structure from the Windows network? What exactly is contained inside a Linux/ Unix network?
>
No comments:
Post a Comment