Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 14th Sep 2017 22:11 UTC
Windows

Today, we are thrilled to unveil the next step in our journey for Windows Server graphical management experiences. In less than two weeks at Microsoft Ignite, we will launch the Technical Preview release of Project "Honolulu", a flexible, locally-deployed, browser-based management platform and tools.

Project "Honolulu" is the culmination of significant customer feedback, which has directly shaped product direction and investments. With support for both hybrid and traditional disconnected server environments, Project "Honolulu" provides a quick and easy solution for common IT admin tasks with a lightweight deployment.

I've never managed any servers, so it's difficult for me to gauge how useful of popular tools like these are. What is the usual way people manage their servers?

Thread beginning with comment 648899
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Great question
by Rokas on Fri 15th Sep 2017 06:38 UTC in reply to "Great question"
Rokas
Member since:
2017-09-12

manage the rest of the servers from one of your lesser used domain controllers.

Why would you ever do that?.. That's horrible practice. Usually, you would have a dedicated admin server with terminal services role and licenses for many concurrent admins, plus all the needed administration tools installed on it.
Domain controllers, like all the other servers, need to be left alone to do their role. If you're using some server for admin work that is not dedicated for admin work, you're doing it wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Great question
by evert on Fri 15th Sep 2017 07:46 in reply to "RE: Great question"
evert Member since:
2005-07-06

"manage the rest of the servers from one of your lesser used domain controllers.

... Usually, you would have a dedicated admin server with terminal services role and licenses for many concurrent admins ...
"

Yeah, additional licenses just to admin the damn thing...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Great question
by Rokas on Fri 15th Sep 2017 07:59 in reply to "RE[2]: Great question"
Rokas Member since:
2017-09-12

Yeah, additional licenses just to admin the damn thing...

Precisely. Unless, of course, you're working in a small and el. cheapo company where such a cost cannot be justified. But then in that case you're probably also using pirated licenses of Windows Server, too...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Great question
by Alfman on Fri 15th Sep 2017 07:56 in reply to "RE: Great question"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Rokas,

Domain controllers, like all the other servers, need to be left alone to do their role. If you're using some server for admin work that is not dedicated for admin work, you're doing it wrong.


Sure, if you have significant load. But not all enterprises warrant dedicated servers for each function. It increases operational and licensing costs for not much benefit. This was the case at one of the places I worked at with about 20 desktop computers.

Sure if you have load issues, then dividing the high usage processes makes sense, but otherwise I'd recommend just keeping it simple ;)


I haven't done windows admin in a long time, my clients on the linux side tend to have one large VPS running several daemons (DNS, SMTP, HTTP, SSH, etc) rather than several smaller VPSs, which at their scales would incur higher costs and overhead than running everything on one instance.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Great question
by Rokas on Fri 15th Sep 2017 08:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Great question"
Rokas Member since:
2017-09-12

Rokas,

Sure, if you have significant load. But not all enterprises warrant dedicated servers for each function. It increases operational and licensing costs for not much benefit. This was the case at one of the places I worked at with about 20 desktop computers.

Well yes, of course a company with 20 computers is a very, very different case :-)

Sure if you have load issues, then dividing the high usage processes makes sense, but otherwise I'd recommend just keeping it simple ;)

Nope. Role segregation is not just about load distribution. It's mostly about security, interoperability issues and ease of upgrades. You see, when you have only one role on the server, it's much, much, MUCH easier to reboot it, upgrade it, do maintenance on it than on the server where there are dozens of very different critical services running, each of which might have it's own needs/requirements... When you do maintenance on such a monolithic server, you're basically taking down entire infra and there's much higher risk that one or another role/service will fail after maintenance.
Also, if any single service/role gets compromised on such a monolithic server, you are totally screwed, since it means complete takeover of all your infra.

Edited 2017-09-15 08:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2