SLP
Will
should have SLP set up on my network. My main office has four NW6 servers
250 users, and
I'm going to be upgrading a 4.11 server in a remote office with less than 30
users. The connection between offices is a measly 56k line so I can't have
too much traffic constantly over the wire.
Is it preferable even with such a slow wan link to just have one DA server
at the main office? I was thinking on the clients at the remote office,
since they rarely rely on a connection to the main office, i.e., if the link
goes down who cares, I would increase the SLP Cache Replies, and on the
remote server SET SLP CACHE TIMEOUT = 1800 hopefully reducing some of that
traffic.
Does this sound like a logical plan? Am i missing anything?
Thanks as always
Massimo Rosen
Will wrote:
>
> It was suggested to post here. I'm having some trouble understanding how I
> should have SLP set up on my network. My main office has four NW6 servers
> 250 users, and
> I'm going to be upgrading a 4.11 server in a remote office with less than 30
> users. The connection between offices is a measly 56k line so I can't have
> too much traffic constantly over the wire.
>
> Is it preferable even with such a slow wan link to just have one DA server
> at the main office?
No. The SLP traffic from those clients will probably saturate the link.
> I was thinking on the clients at the remote office,
> since they rarely rely on a connection to the main office, i.e., if the link
> goes down who cares, I would increase the SLP Cache Replies, and on the
> remote server SET SLP CACHE TIMEOUT = 1800 hopefully reducing some of that
> traffic.
In that case I would probably setup a DA in the remote office, and do
*not* sync the main office DA information into that da at all. For the
rare case the users need to access the main office, have them use the IP
address, or use DNS or host based resolution. With a 56k line between
the offices, I wouldn't dare to allow any SLP traffic whatsoever, it's
just by far too slow.
CU,
--
Massimo Rosen
Novell Support Connection Sysop
No emails please!
http://www.cfc-it.de
Edison Ortiz
While Massimo is definitely on target with his recommendation, I view this
scenario from a different perspective.
Having a DA in the remote office will create additional traffic as well since
the DA will have to read/write to NDS its information and replicate this
information over the WAN.
My ideal setup would be having the DA in the main office as you initially
suggested and run the remote office with a server acting as SA. The clients
at the remote office won't create additional traffic since they will find a
NetWare server local to them via SLP Multicasting. Once connected to the local
server, they can browse the TREE and locate remote servers/services by using
NDS as name resolution method.
--
Edison Ortiz
Novell Product Support Forum SysOp
(No Email Support, Thanks !)
Massimo Rosen
Edison Ortiz wrote:
>
> While Massimo is definitely on target with his recommendation, I view this
> scenario from a different perspective.
>
> Having a DA in the remote office will create additional traffic as well since
> the DA will have to read/write to NDS its information and replicate this
> information over the WAN.
Well only if the local NDS in the remote office *is* replicated to the
main office at all. Given the "speed" of the link, I highly hope that
isn't the case, as I doubt it would work reliably.
Edison Ortiz
> main office at all. Given the "speed" of the link, I highly hope that
> isn't the case, as I doubt it would work reliably.
>
If isn't replicated then how the DAs would keep the same records or are you
suggesting a different scope for the remote office ?
Are you suggesting that this server should not contain a replica ?
In that case, what's the value of having a DA in the remote office if the
clients can connect to the server at the remote office without a DA ?
WSto...@nhl.com
NW411 server, which is being replaced, it is also in it's own tree. I
wanted to take the opportunity to create the new server in my current tree
instead, in a new OU=Mon. However I wasn't going to merge the trees, as
this would involve me needing to upgrade a Pentium166 to Netware6. I was
going to create the new server in my tree, and luckily there are few
enough users in this location that I would just recreate them all, hence
avoiding tree merge. Then I was planning to put a partion on that
server....but now that all seems wrong. All I want is to be able to see
that server from anywhere in the organization, and it be able to see the
rest of my tree.
Would dual 56K lines make a difference as I'm allowed to bring up another
connection?
Edison Ortiz
WSto...@nhl.com wrote:
>
> Hmmmmm now i'm getting confused. The server at the remote office is a
> NW411 server, which is being replaced, it is also in it's own tree.
Do you have IPX traffic going over this slow WAN link ? If so, ouch !!
> I
> wanted to take the opportunity to create the new server in my current tree
> instead, in a new OU=Mon.
Make sure to partition this OU and place a replica on the remote server.
Only this partition will be sync over the WAN, not the entire TREE.
> However I wasn't going to merge the trees, as
> this would involve me needing to upgrade a Pentium166 to Netware6. I was
> going to create the new server in my tree, and luckily there are few
> enough users in this location that I would just recreate them all, hence
> avoiding tree merge. Then I was planning to put a partion on that
> server....but now that all seems wrong.
What's wrong with putting a NDS partition ? You should have a copy of the
user accounts in other servers in case this server crashes. Are you planning
to keep the NetWare4.11 server as well ?
> All I want is to be able to see
> that server from anywhere in the organization, and it be able to see the
> rest of my tree.
Which can be accomplished by installing this server as SA, entering the DA
IP address in SLP.CFG and changing SLP Discovery Option = 4 in MONITOR.NLM
>
> Would dual 56K lines make a difference as I'm allowed to bring up another
> connection?
Without knowing the specifics, would this be aggregate bandwidth or 2 separate
circuits ?
Massimo Rosen
Edison Ortiz wrote:
>
> > Well only if the local NDS in the remote office *is* replicated to the
> > main office at all. Given the "speed" of the link, I highly hope that
> > isn't the case, as I doubt it would work reliably.
> >
>
> If isn't replicated then how the DAs would keep the same records or are you
> suggesting a different scope for the remote office ?
"In that case I would probably setup a DA in the remote office, and do
*not* sync the main office DA information into that da at all"
That's what I meant. :-)
> Are you suggesting that this server should not contain a replica ?
It may contain one, but I wouldn't replicate it over this link.
> In that case, what's the value of having a DA in the remote office if the
> clients can connect to the server at the remote office without a DA ?
Even in a single server, single network setup having a DA is preferrable
over just using a SA. It's faster, more reliable and crates less
traffic.
Edison Ortiz
Massimo Rosen wrote:
>
> >
> > If isn't replicated then how the DAs would keep the same records or are you
> > suggesting a different scope for the remote office ?
>
> "In that case I would probably setup a DA in the remote office, and do
> *not* sync the main office DA information into that da at all"
>
> That's what I meant. :-)
The point is, why setup a DA at all if the clients at that office will find
the server using SLP Multicasting.
>
> > Are you suggesting that this server should not contain a replica ?
>
> It may contain one, but I wouldn't replicate it over this link.
I would if it only contained the user objects (30, AFAIK) for disaster
recovery purposes.
>
> > In that case, what's the value of having a DA in the remote office if the
> > clients can connect to the server at the remote office without a DA ?
>
> Even in a single server, single network setup having a DA is preferrable
> over just using a SA. It's faster, more reliable and crates less
> traffic.
>
Yes, but the DA creates information in NDS. If you want to have a fault
tolerance configuration, you may want to replicate this information to
another server. Since he is only having one server at that location, the
information would have to be replicated over the WAN causing unnecessary
traffic.
Also, the traffic is local if going with the SA approach. I don't think
30 workstations would create havoc with multicasting.