I have 7 Windows computers, 3 Linux computers, 4 shared printers and 3 notebook computers using our local area network. Not all are on all the time (except linux box) so network sharing is somewhat of an issue.
Can someone tell me which on to do.
Thanks.
On 4/12/2013 10:56 PM, CBHedricks wrote:
>
> I have 7 Windows computers, 3 Linux computers, 4 shared printers and 3
> notebook computers using our local area network. Not all are on all the
> time (except linux box) so network sharing is somewhat of an issue.
>
> Can someone tell me which on to do.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
Please explain more precisely what you wish to accomplish. What have you tried? How has it failed?
For simple file and print sharing between Windows machines, you only need to be in the same workgroup and share files/printers.
To add Linux to the mix, you need to configure Samba. See these references:
https://forums.opensuse.org/blogs/jdmcdaniel3/sact-samba-automated-configuration-tool-version-1-02-124/
and
http://opensuse.swerdna.org/suselanprimer.html
It is also possible to share files just between Linux machines via NFS.
Network printers are always accessible to any computer on the network. If the printer is attached to a computer it can be shared
in a number of ways. Without knowing more about your network, it is hard to give you any specific details. But, this may help:
http://opensuse.swerdna.org/susesambaprint.html
http://opensuse.swerdna.org/susesambaprint_1.html
and
http://opensuse.swerdna.org/suseprintipp.html
If you are just starting with print/file sharing, you probably do not want to be thinking AD. This requires a fairly
sophisticated knowledge of networking.
–
P.V.
“We’re all in this together, I’m pulling for you” Red Green
On 2013-04-13 05:56, CBHedricks wrote:
>
> I have 7 Windows computers, 3 Linux computers, 4 shared printers and 3
> notebook computers using our local area network. Not all are on all the
> time (except linux box) so network sharing is somewhat of an issue.
An issue? Why?
> Can someone tell me which on to do.
About what exactly?
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 12.1 x86_64 “Asparagus” at Telcontar)
Sorry, will provide more information.
With our current Peer to Peer arrangements - I am wondering if we are bordering on the upper limit of it’s capability. Right now, there are no conflicting IP addresses nor are we saturating the 100baseT switch with our 15 computers and printers landed on it. With this file server I am setting up, it has enough “horsepower” to also run the DHCP service as well, probably without impacting the Samba side at all.
If Peer to Peer will be fine, what are the danger signs, when should we be thinking of a different service.
On 2013-04-14 02:16, CBHedricks wrote:
>
> Sorry, will provide more information.
>
> 1. Would like to use best / most efficient network on our LAN.
> 2. Active Directory has been at our workplace, IT Professional keeps
> it working, he recommended moving to it on our LAN.
> 3. Is there a point when Peer to Peer will be less efficient, or
> slower and need to be upgraded?
> 4. Is there a benefit to Linux Server for DHCP, Printer Server and
> File Server on our network?
I don’t understand what you understand peer to peer is in comparison to
AD, specially regarding “efficiency”.
AD is mostly about identification, access control, and permissions. Not
about things like speed of file transmissions on the network.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 12.1 x86_64 “Asparagus” at Telcontar)
On 4/13/2013 7:16 PM, CBHedricks wrote:
>
> Sorry, will provide more information.
>
> 1. Would like to use best / most efficient network on our LAN.
> 2. Active Directory has been at our workplace, IT Professional keeps
> it working, he recommended moving to it on our LAN.
> 3. Is there a point when Peer to Peer will be less efficient, or
> slower and need to be upgraded?
> 4. Is there a benefit to Linux Server for DHCP, Printer Server and
> File Server on our network?
>
> With our current Peer to Peer arrangements - I am wondering if we are
> bordering on the upper limit of it’s capability. Right now, there are
> no conflicting IP addresses nor are we saturating the 100baseT switch
> with our 15 computers and printers landed on it. With this file server
> I am setting up, it has enough “horsepower” to also run the DHCP service
> as well, probably without impacting the Samba side at all.
>
> If Peer to Peer will be fine, what are the danger signs, when should we
> be thinking of a different service.
>
>
CBHedricks;
If your not familiar with the functionality of and AD, this may be worth reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Directory
Do you need centralized security and/or logins?
I don’t think an AD will help improve traffic. Depending on your file sharing needs, increasing the number of file servers would
have more effect that just adding a Windows2k8 or similar domain controller. It might also help if you went to Gigabit networking
hardware if you are having problems with collisions. If you only need to centralize logins, or manage a large user base, consider
adding an ldap server. It need not be a domain controller.
–
P.V.
“We’re all in this together, I’m pulling for you” Red Green
For peer-to-peer file access with security, but simple when compared to using AD, have a look at using Samba which works with both Windows and Linux PC’s. I have a nice blog on the subject here for the Linux side: S.A.C.T. - Samba Automated Configuration Tool - Version 1.03 - Blogs - openSUSE Forums and for remote PC control, have a look here: How To Use VNC/Remmina to Remote Control an openSUSE 12.3 KDE Desktop - Blogs - openSUSE Forums and there is plenty more help from where that came from.
Thank You,
Thanks for the advice - all who have chipped in.
I will keep the peer to peer network, after reading the links it seems like it will continue to work OK, least amount of tinkering or management on my part. I have complete gigabit switching in near future, still waiting for a good “green” 24 port switch to lower down a bit more in price. Looks like it would work for all of the computers… Provided I can somehow resolve the next issue successfully.
I am trying connect our two wireless LAN’s so they can share files. Right now the connections are with Primary as FiOS Westell Wireless G Modem Router, hosting a 16port switch and an additional 5port gigabit switch all connecting with the primary 192.168.1.xxx LAN, with an additional D Link wireless N router attached that has a second LAN setup of 192.168.0.xxx:
FiOS -> 1 - 4 port LAN switch and Wireless G (192.168.1.0)
Port 1: 16 port 100BaseT network switch (shares 192.168.1.0)
Port 2: 5 Port 1000BaseT network switch (shares 192.168.1.0)
Port 3: D Link Wireless N router - has ip assigned to unit of 192.168.1.30, device connected to router (wired or wireless) get 192.168.0.xxx IP
address assignments.
This setup does not allow our wireless N clients to see the primary network, nor use shared printers that are on the G wireless LAN connection. Also - neither network can see or share files with the other.
Any ideas on how I can resolve this situation?
On 4/14/2013 12:36 AM, CBHedricks wrote:
>
> Thanks for the advice - all who have chipped in.
>
> I will keep the peer to peer network, after reading the links it seems
> like it will continue to work OK, least amount of tinkering or
> management on my part. I have complete gigabit switching in near
> future, still waiting for a good “green” 24 port switch to lower down a
> bit more in price. Looks like it would work for all of the computers…
> Provided I can somehow resolve the next issue successfully.
>
> I am trying connect our two wireless LAN’s so they can share files.
> Right now the connections are with Primary as FiOS Westell Wireless G
> Modem Router, hosting a 16port switch and an additional 5port gigabit
> switch all connecting with the primary 192.168.1.xxx LAN, with an
> additional D Link wireless N router attached that has a second LAN setup
> of 192.168.0.xxx:
>
> FiOS → 1 - 4 port LAN switch and Wireless G (192.168.1.0)
> Port 1: 16 port 100BaseT network switch (shares 192.168.1.0)
> Port 2: 5 Port 1000BaseT network switch (shares 192.168.1.0)
> Port 3: D Link Wireless N router - has ip assigned to unit of
> 192.168.1.30, device connected to router (wired or wireless) get
> 192.168.0.xxx IP
> address assignments.
>
> This setup does not allow our wireless N clients to see the primary
> network, nor use shared printers that are on the G wireless LAN
> connection. Also - neither network can see or share files with the
> other.
>
> Any ideas on how I can resolve this situation?
>
>
CBHedricks;
NETBIOS name resolution is by default done by broadcasts which can not be routed. You can setup one of the Samba machines at a
WINS server. To make Samba a WINS server just add the following line to /etc/samba/smb.conf
wins support = Yes
The other machines will need to be pointed to the WINS server. You can do this statically or via dhcp. On a Linux machine using
dhcpd just add the following option to /etc/dhcpd.conf:
option netbios-name-servers <IPofWINSServer>;
The WINS server is assigned statically under the property box of the network connection (Internet Protocol version 4[TCP/IPv4]).
On a Samba machine add the following to parameter to /etc/samba/smb.conf
wins server = <IPofWINSServer>
I’ve always statically assigned the WINS server IPs on Linux machines and used dhcpd on WindowsX. I’m not positive you can even
get dhcp to assign the WINS server to Linux. It is also be useful, but not required, to modify the the hosts line of
/etc/nsswitch.conf to read something like:
hosts: wins dns files
/code
If you are using Linux/Samba as the WINS server there can only be one WINS server. DO NOT set BOTH the "wins server" and "wins
support" parameter on the same machine.
You of course need proper routing between the sub-domains.
--
P.V.
"We're all in this together, I'm pulling for you" RedThanks. Most helpful and shows me where to get started, at ground level… LOL
I have a bit of reading to do it would seem… The documentation on the internet is well and good, but I would like to have a couple of good books also. Local bookstore is lacking in all things Linux / Unix, making it a bit more difficult to find reference material - any good “from ground up” books? I have a couple of good windows networking books, and one or two “Bibles” from SuSE 7, will be looking for something a bit more current if possible.
I know about networking hardware wise from the Windows side. Linux hardware is the same, only the OS is slightly different (read BETTER) and will take some getting use to.
Thanks.
Providing, clarifying and updating some information in this thread…
The original Q and subject line suggests whether to deploy AD or Peer to Peer (Workgroup) networking. The general rule of thumb is when your LAN is at least 3 machines, then you need to consider the benefits of centralized management of your network. When you’ve reached 5 machines, then you’re tipping solidly towards centralized Network Security using something like Active Directory. You can use P-P networking practically up to about 20 machines, but when you exceed 5 machines expect some networking anomalies from time to time, eg higher lookup latencies, extra ARP and other broadcast traffic,
Besides centralized management, you should understand <why> something like AD (there are others) benefit networking. Because all Authentication, Authorization and security are managed by Domain Controllers, through DNS and DHCP your hosts on the network <know> where to get network information. In a Peer to Peer network because there is no centralized authority there are elections to determine which machine(s) likely assume the role of holding the network’s information and provides authentication. Naturally, deploying Server based authentication requires those Servers to be on all the time, but unlike a Workgroup your Domain Controllers don’t have to be the biggest, baddest machines on the network, they can be sized to provide only what they need to do.
Don’t know what you mean by “Active Directory has been at our workplace.” If AD is implemented in your workplace, and you’re setting up AD at home, they <must> be different name spaces. Also, it’s highly advisable your networkID should be different so that you can VPN to work if you need to do so. I doubt that you’d be integrating AD with work but if that is a goal then you’ll want to read up on Domain Trusts. If you deploy something other than AD at home and want to integrate with work AD then you’ll need to read up on Federated Trusts, maybe something else depending on what you’re actually implementing.
Re: Linux vs Windows for File, Print services… YMMV. Especially if you are running AD, then adding a new host or managing network services is centralized, simple and automatically pushed to your machines (see my previous comment). SAMBA4 is a recent option still being reviewed as an addition to AD but I doubt would be easy to set up an AD from scratch instead of simply replicating from a Windows DC.
DHCP however is a different animal. If you’re implementing a Workgroup, then anything can be used. If you’re implementing LDAP or AD, then I’d <highly> recommend your DC, DNS and DHCP <all> be implemented on the same OS (platform) because of how those three services must be tightly integrated and exchange information with each other.
Regarding WINS and NetBIOS Name Servers, those aren’t necessary in modern LDAP (and Active Directory), they are required only for legacy NT4 style Domains. Since the first implementation of Active Directory, Host naming is used and NetBIOS naming is not required. BTW - for many Workgroup networks, NetBIOS nameing is still implemented. So, do <not> implement WINS or similar unless you have a reason to do so (eg NT4 Domains, NT4 OS).
Regarding your Internet Gateway router, and implementing sharing and/or transfers between the different zones, it’s done for a reason and is <good practice> to separate Guests from authorized hosts. Still today, most Network Security (like AD) is intended to be used mainly behind firewalls between trusted hosts. It’s possible to implement in front of a firewall but you need to understand security in depth or follow recommended practice like tunneling and/or additional encryption layers.
If you really wish to implement access from/to the public and private zones as defined by your gateway,
HTH,
TSU
Thank you… Right on the money and answered quite a few questions that I had rolling around in my skull. What I meant by AD at work - Our workplace has a national presence, they have well over 10k machines on the corporate network with access control implemented from top to bottom of the organization. My close friend in the IT department suggested that I look into Linux as a useable and easily modified platform that could streamline my home network, allowing us to remove a few bottlenecks that were starting to crop up. Thus my renewed involvement with Linux, and more importantly OpenSuSE, as I was familiar with it back in version 7.
I have to admit - most of what I knew from that time frame appears to have gone the way of the dinosaur - I still know how to use simple commands, load programs and most user operations, but my favorite utilities have either disappeared or been replaced so I am starting over so to speak. I am setting up my server with SAMBA4 to share disk space with our Windows 7 machines and also considering having it run the network as well. It certainly will have all the horsepower needed.
I have been spending my time searching for some good reading material on Linux Server administration and setup guides, and have found a couple that look promising. I will continue to look into this and I really do appreciate the help.
On 2013-04-18 05:26, CBHedricks wrote:
> I am setting up my server with SAMBA4 to share disk space
> with our Windows 7 machines and also considering having it run the
> network as well. It certainly will have all the horsepower needed.
This might help: Samba and Suse: HowTo Set up an openSUSE-Windows Home Office
LAN/Network.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 12.1 x86_64 “Asparagus” at Telcontar)
Looks like another excellent Swerdna article, but skimming it looks like it covers only SAMBA3 functionality.
Windows AD Admins will quickly notice that a major benefit of AD which is to centrally manage Windows hosts is missing but should be supported in SAMBA4. I doubt a SAMBA4 setup would automatically implement and configure those new features although I could be wrong(gotta try this myself some time). So if what I am guessing proves true then it would be almost a no-brainer to setup AD on Windows first, then if desired replicate to SAMBA(and maybe promote).
TSU
OK… I have the server up and running with 2tb of document space, 2tb of media space and 1.6tb of backup (computer images) storage to cover catastrophic failure on the part of the Windows machines in my home.
I have been reading up on SAMBA and it would seem that it is recommended to setup the server as Preferred Master, Local Master and Domain Master to alieviate problems with NetBIOS networking. Most of the documentation points to heterogeneous networks that have Windows XP / NT or Server 200x machines present. In my situation I do not have anything older than Windows 7 running on the LAN, so I am a bit apprehensive of setting these features up.
Questions:
My thanks in advance.
On 2013-05-05 00:16, CBHedricks wrote:
> 5. SAMBA 4 seems to be installed by default - will the majority of
> SAMBA 3 documentation still be relevant?
Samba 4 is uncharted territory.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 12.1 x86_64 “Asparagus” at Telcontar)
On 5/4/2013 5:16 PM, CBHedricks wrote:
>
> OK… I have the server up and running with 2tb of document space, 2tb
> of media space and 1.6tb of backup (computer images) storage to cover
> catastrophic failure on the part of the Windows machines in my home.
>
> I have been reading up on SAMBA and it would seem that it is
> recommended to setup the server as Preferred Master, Local Master and
> Domain Master to alieviate problems with NetBIOS networking. Most of
> the documentation points to heterogeneous networks that have Windows XP
> / NT or Server 200x machines present. In my situation I do not have
> anything older than Windows 7 running on the LAN, so I am a bit
> apprehensive of setting these features up.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Does SAMBA running on OpenSUSE 12.3 need to have WINS running if
> there are no XP / NT machines present?
You only need a WINS server if machines are on different subnets. Even with XP broadcasts work just fine. After all that’s how
most Windows networks are setup whether there is Linux in the mix or not.
> 2. Will turning on services for WINS in this situation break the
> server / kill the network?
No, but you do need to point the clients, NOT the server itself, to the WINS server.
> 3. Does Windows 7 / 8 use the same NetBIOS as is present on XP / NT?
Yes if network discovery is turned on.
> 4. Is setting the server for “preferred, local, domain” master still
> apply?
If all machines are on the same subnet, then the local and domain master are the same. I would just leave this at the default
values for a simple workgroup. See the write up on each parameter in the manual for smb.conf.
http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/man/manpages-3/smb.conf.5.html
> 5. SAMBA 4 seems to be installed by default - will the majority of
> SAMBA 3 documentation still be relevant?
OpenSUSE ships with Samba 3.6.12. As Carlos said “Samba4 is uncharted territory”. In theory Samba4 is backwards compatible with
Samba3 but I’ve not tested this. Some of the Samba3 parameters were removed e.g. “security = share”. AFAIK Samba has yet to
release an official manual for Samba4’s smb.conf. But an unofficial version was posted a while back. You can read it here:
http://www.sloop.net/smb.conf.html
>
> My thanks in advance.
>
>
–
P.V.
“We’re all in this together, I’m pulling for you” Red Green
On 2013-05-05 05:21, PV wrote:
>> 1. Does SAMBA running on OpenSUSE 12.3 need to have WINS running if
>> there are no XP / NT machines present?
>
> You only need a WINS server if machines are on different subnets. Even
> with XP broadcasts work just fine. After all that’s how most Windows
> networks are setup whether there is Linux in the mix or not.
I’m not sure, but sometimes I had problems with some computers finding
or not, shares on other computers. Apparently a wins server helps.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 12.1 x86_64 “Asparagus” at Telcontar)
On 5/5/2013 8:38 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2013-05-05 05:21, PV wrote:
>>> 1. Does SAMBA running on OpenSUSE 12.3 need to have WINS running if
>>> there are no XP / NT machines present?
>>
>> You only need a WINS server if machines are on different subnets. Even
>> with XP broadcasts work just fine. After all that’s how most Windows
>> networks are setup whether there is Linux in the mix or not.
>
> I’m not sure, but sometimes I had problems with some computers finding
> or not, shares on other computers. Apparently a wins server helps.
>
Usually this means you must adjust the “name resolve order” to move bcast to first place. On rare occasions a single Windows
machine seems to hijack the browse list. This can be solved with a regedit. Although I confess to using a WINS server mainly
because there are more than one subnets. But, also because it cuts down on broadcasts.
–
P.V.
“We’re all in this together, I’m pulling for you” Red Green
Name Resolution order is usually configured by a DHCP option.
No, putting broadcasts first is usually a very bad move unless you don’t mind your network being extremely “chatty” (unnecessary traffic). Directed queries are far batter and should be sufficient if your network (DNS, DHCP, Domain Controllers) are healthy. Since server capacity should not be an issue except in extraordinarily large networks, configuration and good physical network connections are your main points of concern.
Preferences should always be in this order
Host Name resolution (DNS, Hosts files)
NBios Name Resolution (WINS, lmhosts files)
Broadcasts (no Server resolution, every host finds another host by ARPing until the target responds)
TSU