Hi!!
Do I need to license all Active Directory users?
I've set an Windows AD and they said that those damn CALs must be bogth to each client (user or device) to access the server.
Really??? I buy an expensive server hardware, really expensive Windows Server and to use that server as a server I have to buy CALs to each machine or user??
As far as I know you buy a licence for an X ammount of users
Depends. Heave you got device or user licenses.
Do you have remote users. Off site.
Pretty much, yes, you usually do. Sometimes you may may get so many user CALs bundled in so check what Server software you purchased and the T & C's carefully. Also, some MIcrosoft products can be licenced per processor or core and don't require product CALs.
This link may help explain about the different types access licences;
https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/Licensing/product-licensing/client-access-license.aspx
and
Microsoft products are pretty good for easy to setup work environments but the licence costs can work out to be very expensive. When I used to have a few smaller companies as clients I used to steer them towards using Linux for basic account, file-sharing and printer servers for this reason, the money saved on licence costs could then pay for IT support.
AD Users don't really need licensing unless you are looking into certain Microsoft features (ex. Exchange).
@BGL linked a pretty good resource for that.
If you are only setting up a Windows server, a per processor is all you really need and you can pretty much manage as many users as you would like.
If you want extra features (Exchange or Skype for Business), then you may want to look into CAL licensing (It may be cheaper to look into Office365 Business at that point).
I don't believe that is correct. When you buy a Windows Server Key you get 2 user and 2 computers and thats it. Anything else that you connect to it needs a CAL.
I believe what you are referring to is what MS calls addictive CALs. I know, addictive, what a name. These allow you use advanced features like Right Management with Exchange.
This blog post explains it quite well.
Thanks for the answers!
Sorry I am really not an active forum user.
I felt really ... annoyed. I find CALs in some situations and absurd!
Why? Why do we have to buy licenses to access the SERVER that we already have a license to use? (!!!)
So, as the money is not mine and unfortunately we have to agree with this, we bought CALs for devices to access our AD Server.
Oh! Linux Samba Server, I miss you.
I don't know exactly what the limitations are (may or may not be able to be forest root) but Samba 4 can operate as an AD DC. Might have enough coverage for the features you need.
I know it's not really important now, just wanted to share.
Yes, this kind of thing sucks. It works fine for large corps who would likely end up paying similar amounts to Red-Hat, SuSe or another Linux vendor in support costs (and can negotiate the terms of their licencing/support contracts). But for a small business it's rarely cheaper than using FOSS software and hiring a local support company to help them (assuming they even need extrenal support).
Thanks!
:) We've "migrated" from Samba4 to Windows Server. We were having to many problems, strange ones.
At the beginning of the year, I came back from my vacation and the services simple were not working.
Also for a long time we were having problems with permissions, having to remove and reapply frequently. Some times, manly with Office files, when a user saved a file the rest of the group could not access it even when I reapply the permissions.
To solve I had to remove the permissions, ACL and POSIX, and reapply them in the entire share in every file, to make sure.
I was having fun learning to use Samba but, sometimes it was annoying to find discordant solutions to the same problem and find that the Samba wiki isn't that trustful. Even when I create, more than a year ago, another server from scratch and used some users as guinea pigs... testers ( :D ) I had some problems even when I was already using a compiled version of Samba to keep it always updated.
We didn't migrated the files yet, Samba is acting as a member server to provide the shares and files.
Actually if someone can help we are having problems with various files and folders because they have accents, tild etc. When I try to rsync to Windows it gets messy.
:)
NTFS used by Windows supports Unicode, so should be able to handle accents and tilds. Are you able to copy the files ok, apart from when you use rsync?
Ah, Sorry to hear you were having such trouble.
Actually if someone can help we are having problems with various files and folders because they have accents, tild etc. When I try to rsync to Windows it gets messy.
If you're looking to remove the "special characters" we can use the rename command to replace them. It uses regular expressions, so if you're not familiar with them, you should have a look at this guide.
@BGL has a good point though. You shouldn't need to do this, so maybe rsync is having trouble. If the files are accessable by a windows machine, maybe the windows command xcopy will be a better fit.
Hi!
I am trying to use rsync because I want to keep it in sync until we fully migrate to the new server because Windows, you know. The current server (Linux) would act as a fall back during a week or so as a warranty if Windows tries to ... toy with us.
I've tried via NFS and via SSH on both Windows (cwrsync) and Linux. I've also tried remounting the folder with - I forgot the bloody name - fuse command that mounts an already mounted folder with different charset, but, didn't work either, actually got worse by not showing the files and folders with "special" characters.
Via SMB I will have to change, try at least, the permissions for everything on the production server during work hours only to test if the sync will in fact work.
I am going to try using and external USB Drive. Will be only another tr
Would iSCSI make any difference, transforming the current server share in one iSCSI "disk"?
How I miss the days when I could rsync everything from one server to another ... flawlessly.
Ah. that makes sense.
iSCSI could help, but the way I see it, something either on NFS (windows side) or SSH windows isn't happy with the unicode characters.
If you're just trying to keep them in sync for a while, have a look at Unison. It seems to have a robust system to it, so you may have a good experience with this. I haven't used it myself, but it gets good reviews.
Hello!
I think I have never used Unison but this site seems very familiar. I will try probably tomorrow (if I can pause time for a while).
Thank you.