On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 20:59, novicegeek <acss82@yahoo.co.uk> 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.
I have to disagree just a bit with dbneeley... I've run windows
networks without domain controllers. Now, obviously in a larger
setting that becomes an untenable way to keep a network going, but at
the small scale, not a requirement as long as you're willing to manage
the network and systems manually.
Same goes for linux networks.
The question is, why do you need a domain controller? What does it
do? DHCP and DNS services (or NetBIOS or whatever that windows stuff
is)? Any Linux network of decent size will also have a primary server
that serves DHCP and DNS services. You want logins to be identical
across hosts on the network? Active Directory (the biggest reason,
IMHO for a domain controller) in Windows, or NIS on Linux or most
other *nix based networks. File Serving? Well, something has to
serve files... it doesn't happen by magic in the Linux network... so
again, that primary server could be your NFS/Samba file server.
The point is, there is no real difference between similar sized
networks, whether they be primarily Windows or Linux based, or a mix
of Linux, Windows and Mac. At the base level they all use TCP/IP
these days, all focus around the same topology (a server with hosts
connected to it). The central sever for each provides the same tools
and structure. The only real difference ultimately is whether you
want to pay the Microsoft per-seat licensing fees, and the per-host
fees, and other assorted fees for running a Microsoft based network.
> 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?
See above. In short... there is no difference. Same type of data
presented across similar styled networks.
Cheers
Jeff
No comments:
Post a Comment