JamieVicary
asked on
Accessing a local Windows XP network remotely
Dear Experts,
I work for a small, rapidly-growing consultancy. We have a medium sized office network with around 15 Windows XP machines, plus a few printers, and a PC which we call the 'file server' with a large, mirrored hard disk in a RAID setup. The majority of our day-to-day work is done directly onto the file server, which is shared using Windows File Sharing so that all the PCs in the office can access it; this setup works almost perfectly. (Of course, we take regular backups of the file server which are stored off-site.)
The firm is growing; we have an increasing need to be able to access our internal network, but especially the file server machine, from remote locations. What's the best way to do this? We are located in the UK, and have a BT business broadband internet connection, which is pretty cheap. Is it likely that our contract with our ISP prohibits us from operating a server? If so, roughly how much would this cost us?
We also want it to be easy to use. We map the file server to the z: drive on our PCs in the office; it would be fantastic if we could continue to access the file server in the same transparent manner even when connecting from a remote location, that way all of our file paths (like 'z:\stuff\spreadsheet.xls'
Thanks,
Jamie Vicary.
I work for a small, rapidly-growing consultancy. We have a medium sized office network with around 15 Windows XP machines, plus a few printers, and a PC which we call the 'file server' with a large, mirrored hard disk in a RAID setup. The majority of our day-to-day work is done directly onto the file server, which is shared using Windows File Sharing so that all the PCs in the office can access it; this setup works almost perfectly. (Of course, we take regular backups of the file server which are stored off-site.)
The firm is growing; we have an increasing need to be able to access our internal network, but especially the file server machine, from remote locations. What's the best way to do this? We are located in the UK, and have a BT business broadband internet connection, which is pretty cheap. Is it likely that our contract with our ISP prohibits us from operating a server? If so, roughly how much would this cost us?
We also want it to be easy to use. We map the file server to the z: drive on our PCs in the office; it would be fantastic if we could continue to access the file server in the same transparent manner even when connecting from a remote location, that way all of our file paths (like 'z:\stuff\spreadsheet.xls'
Thanks,
Jamie Vicary.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
thanks :)
ASKER
Thanks JayJay.
:: Will we need a static IP address?
:: What about the z: drive stuff?
:: Will we need a static IP address?
:: What about the z: drive stuff?
talk to your isp about static address - it is much better otherwise you need to play with dynamic dns.....
if you directly link to your machine via rdp then z: access will be fine
if you directly link to your machine via rdp then z: access will be fine
ASKER
rdp? I'm not sure what you mean, could you explain more clearly?
rdp is remote desktop connection
the protocol is uses requires port 3389 to be open on your router to let it through
right click my computer - properties - remote (if xp)
the protocol is uses requires port 3389 to be open on your router to let it through
right click my computer - properties - remote (if xp)
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Given that you are expanding, as you say, what I would recommend (as Jay Jay said) would be to purchase a license for Server 2003 and Client Access Licenses for your end users. Running the Routing and Remote access you can set up a VPN connection through your Server 2003. Another good thing about Server 2003 is that it handles SSH (Secure Shell) connections so you can connect via a terminal program first, and make a secure pipe, and than run Remote Desktop over the secured connection. You can also setup a RADIUS server to couple with the VPN.
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/Library/00c498a8-95e7-4780-942e-c4594b01f6151033.mspx
JK
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/Library/00c498a8-95e7-4780-942e-c4594b01f6151033.mspx
JK
Another solution...Yellowmachine.c
This answers your question regarding VPN (Remote access) as well as provides breathing room for your rapid growth.
This answers your question regarding VPN (Remote access) as well as provides breathing room for your rapid growth.
Personally, I have never been a big fan of the all-in-one solution. The device that you described seems like it would create the ultimate single point of failure. I.e, if this suggested product goes down you've lost, Internet, email, network security, backups, VPN access and maybe even printing if you do so through the network. You would have, effectively zero productivity, with 100% productivity all dependant upon one device. That is my opinion.
JK
JK
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
As I said, it was just my opinion. Of course you can replace pieces of the device as they go down. And as you do this, You effectively deaggregate all of the services, thereby completely defeating the purpose of getting an all in one in the first place. All in one devices are good when they address core roles, such as an appliance that does firewall, intrusion detection, email filtering and web filtering.
JV:
As RobWill stated, you will undoubtedly need to go with some type of Server Technology eventually, especially with you concurrent connection issue. The benefit to the Server 2003 approach is that you will be killing two birds w/ one stone. Upgrading you environment and centralizing services. WSUS for example, Group Policy, Web Services, Routing Functionality, VPN and Remote Access all come inherent in the Server 2003 Platform. Cisco also has some very good products, if you were to concentrate solely on the VPN portion of the upgrade, offering SOHO products such as the 1700 and 1800 series routers. I would want some type of hardware based firewall in between the Internet and my Server if I were you also....
JK
JV:
As RobWill stated, you will undoubtedly need to go with some type of Server Technology eventually, especially with you concurrent connection issue. The benefit to the Server 2003 approach is that you will be killing two birds w/ one stone. Upgrading you environment and centralizing services. WSUS for example, Group Policy, Web Services, Routing Functionality, VPN and Remote Access all come inherent in the Server 2003 Platform. Cisco also has some very good products, if you were to concentrate solely on the VPN portion of the upgrade, offering SOHO products such as the 1700 and 1800 series routers. I would want some type of hardware based firewall in between the Internet and my Server if I were you also....
JK
JamieVicary,
Do you have an AD structure? Sound like you are still on Peer to Peer. It's tough not to have static ip. Seems like you are on a dynamic internet access. If you get your ISP to give you static ip addresses that you can go along with VPN.
Do you have an AD structure? Sound like you are still on Peer to Peer. It's tough not to have static ip. Seems like you are on a dynamic internet access. If you get your ISP to give you static ip addresses that you can go along with VPN.
Many ISP's offer Managed VPN access also, give em a call-
Is BT your only available ISP? I know they're cheap...but you need servers and if they don't allow them, you need somebody who does.
Everyone's right about the need for a server ASAP. I thought your "file server" was a server, not a workstation in a peer-to-peer environment.
You asked for a cost estimate if you were to get a server. You need to think about capacity planning if you're growing fast. Servers prices vary drastically based on your needs. If you're growing REALLY fast, you may think about a Rack mounted server(s) instead of a tower (space saving). You have to project your growth over the next 5-7 years which is the life expectancy of the average server. If you have 15 workstations this year, how many will you have next year, in two years or five years? You really have to plan out the logical and physical structure of your systems and data.
Then you spend based on current needs on a system(s) that (with upgrades) will meet future needs without having to upgrade next week. You have to periodically follow your utilization and see that it meets your projections. One piece of advice...I prefer Dell or HP solutions for servers as opposed to home-brewed systems. I also look on ebay to see if I can save a buck or two...but that's a risk I'm willing to take.
Everyone's right about the need for a server ASAP. I thought your "file server" was a server, not a workstation in a peer-to-peer environment.
You asked for a cost estimate if you were to get a server. You need to think about capacity planning if you're growing fast. Servers prices vary drastically based on your needs. If you're growing REALLY fast, you may think about a Rack mounted server(s) instead of a tower (space saving). You have to project your growth over the next 5-7 years which is the life expectancy of the average server. If you have 15 workstations this year, how many will you have next year, in two years or five years? You really have to plan out the logical and physical structure of your systems and data.
Then you spend based on current needs on a system(s) that (with upgrades) will meet future needs without having to upgrade next week. You have to periodically follow your utilization and see that it meets your projections. One piece of advice...I prefer Dell or HP solutions for servers as opposed to home-brewed systems. I also look on ebay to see if I can save a buck or two...but that's a risk I'm willing to take.
ASKER
Thanks all. rairdonm: we're not growing that fast! We've just outgrown our current setup. Server 2003 on the file server machine will do the job nicely.
Thanks for the context supplied by the general discussion: I now have a good idea what we need and what we don't.
Thanks for the context supplied by the general discussion: I now have a good idea what we need and what we don't.
Thanks Jamie,
--Rob
--Rob
3389 is right.
Chris