Help diagnosing peer-peer issues?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joe Befumo
  • Start date Start date
J

Joe Befumo

I'm a long time programmer who has maintained a Windows 2003 server domain
in my home, but I'm by no means a network specialist. As a volunteer at a
local NPR ratio station (WJFF), I've been asked to try to help them resolve
their network problems. I'd rather not leave them in worse shape than they
are now, so I'd like to seek suggestions from those who really know what
they're doing.



Right now they have a 9-node peer-peer network, consisting of 2 Windows 98
machines, 2 running Windows 2000, and the remainder running Windows XP
(Professional, I believe, but I wouldn't swear to it.). These are hooked up
through a combination of a 8-port Linksys switch, combined with a second
hub/switch on one of the lines to give them a few extra nodes. They are
using DHCP through the Linksys unit. If it has a firewall feature, they are
not using it. One of the machines is equipped with two NIC cards, and
participates in a second network that controls their on-the-air software, so
we're not going to be messing with that network, as it works adequately. The
reason for the dual-card machine is so that they can move sound files into
the main network for editing, etc.



The Problem: Shared drives are sometimes reachable, sometimes not.



They've expressed a willingness to go to a Windows 2003 Server domain, but
my initial inclination is to solve the existing problem first, then examine
their needs to determine whether they need to change their basic topology.



I've had problems using DHCP in the past, so my first inclination is to
advise them to turn it off on the Linksys switch, and assign each node a
fixed IP address of the form 192.168.0.xxx/255.255.255.0



Is this reasonable, or should I be looking at other areas first?



I might also ask if the machines that are hooked through the second hub are
those encountering problems. I know it shouldn't matter, but I've
encountered difficulties when doing that in my home system (which now uses
an 8-port Netgear firewall/switch, and works perfectly).



The second issue they have, not strictly related to networking, involves
data security. They have a good many irreplaceable documents throughout this
system, and though they strive for redundancy, there's no real procedure for
saving documents in multiple locations.



Going for a large tape drive would probably be prohibitively expensive for
them. My guess is that they would probably not use it regularly anyhow.
Hence, my next inclination, once the network is stable, is to set up one
Windows 2003 Server, configured as a stand-alone server on the workgroup,
and equip it with two big mirrored drives, and designate that as a dedicated
file server. (They have an extra machine, and get all of their Microsoft
software at non-profit prices, so they can afford this route.)



Question: Is the software-mirroring adequate for ensuring their data
security? Again, we're not looking for ideal--just something a bit more
measured than the current pandemonium.



Thanks.



Joe
 
Right now they have a 9-node peer-peer network, consisting of 2 Windows 98
machines, 2 running Windows 2000, and the remainder running Windows XP
(Professional, I believe, but I wouldn't swear to it.).

If they're not running XP Pro, convince them to upgrade. Like magic, things
line permissions and authentication will start working.
These are hooked up through a combination of a 8-port Linksys switch,
combined with a second hub/switch on one of the lines to give them a few
extra nodes. They are using DHCP through the Linksys unit. If it has a
firewall feature, they are not using it. One of the machines is equipped
with two NIC cards, and participates in a second network that controls
their on-the-air software, so we're not going to be messing with that
network, as it works adequately. The reason for the dual-card machine is so
that they can move sound files into the main network for editing, etc.



The Problem: Shared drives are sometimes reachable, sometimes not.



They've expressed a willingness to go to a Windows 2003 Server domain, but
my initial inclination is to solve the existing problem first, then
examine their needs to determine whether they need to change their basic
topology.

They are right on the line for needing a domain IMHO. 9 workstations may or
may not be a problem depending on how they are set up. If they are running
an open network without security, most of the problems (other than security
itself) are probably non-problems. If there are security issues or they have
a distributed environment (shares all over the place) then a domain
certainly simplifies things through cenral administration.
I've had problems using DHCP in the past, so my first inclination is to
advise them to turn it off on the Linksys switch, and assign each node a
fixed IP address of the form 192.168.0.xxx/255.255.255.0

DHCP should not be a problem unless it's not set up right. You really need
to troubleshoot a computer that's not able to connect to a network resource
and see if it is related to no IP address. Even if it is, that doesn't mean
the DHCP server is the problem.

Is this reasonable, or should I be looking at other areas first?



I might also ask if the machines that are hooked through the second hub
are those encountering problems. I know it shouldn't matter, but I've
encountered difficulties when doing that in my home system (which now uses
an 8-port Netgear firewall/switch, and works perfectly).

Obviously, if computers connected to a specific device are the ones with the
problem, that device would be suspect. I would encourage them to invest in
some business-class switching hardware (think Cisco, Foundry, Extreme).
The second issue they have, not strictly related to networking, involves
data security. They have a good many irreplaceable documents throughout
this system, and though they strive for redundancy, there's no real
procedure for saving documents in multiple locations.



Going for a large tape drive would probably be prohibitively expensive for
them. My guess is that they would probably not use it regularly anyhow.
Hence, my next inclination, once the network is stable, is to set up one
Windows 2003 Server, configured as a stand-alone server on the workgroup,
and equip it with two big mirrored drives, and designate that as a
dedicated file server. (They have an extra machine, and get all of their
Microsoft software at non-profit prices, so they can afford this route.)



Question: Is the software-mirroring adequate for ensuring their data
security? Again, we're not looking for ideal--just something a bit more
measured than the current pandemonium.


NO! Software mirroring or even hardware mirroring does not provide a decent
neasure of data integrity/security. Mirrors provice fault tolerance. Backups
provide for disaster recovery. There's no substitute for a solid backup
solution, carefully considered and tailored to their specific needs.
 
Back
Top