I've been reading the documentation but there is some stuff I don't get.
It seems I can install into a new tree and choose the non-name-mapped deployment. Is this a popular choice?
Does this provide flexibility or limit it?
I read the following statement "Novell doesn't support installing other Novell products within a Domain Services for Windows (DSfW) partition." at Novell Doc: OES 11 SP1: Domain Services for Windows Administration Guide - Unsupported Service Combinations
I think that if I choose a non-name-mapped install then the entire new eDirectory tree will live inside the DSfW partition, or was that statement meant for name-mapped setups? Does that mean that we would not be able to install ZenWorks, Filr or GroupWise into the new tree? If true this suggests non-name-mapped setups are more limiting than name-mapped setups, and probably to be avoided.
Thanks for the free wisdom.
Background:
There is an existing Netware server 6.0 serving about 20 users as a file server but there doesn't appear to be any interest in migration or coexistance. A fresh clean tree is a core element of the plan so far. I'm thinking of three or four OES servers: Two DSfW servers (DHCP, DNS, eDir, domain controllers, SLP), a file server and a Filr server.
There is other stuff in the environment, including openSUSE DHCP and DNS, SLES application server, various other servers for databases and web stuff, Windows domain for 4 users to use Remote Desktop Services. A bunch of Windows desktops and a proliferation of mobile devices (hence interest in Filr is drive the change right now).
Hopefully over time the other servers will be part of the new eDirectory tree for authentication and ease of management.
If I choose a name-mapped setup, I think I need to install 4 or 5 servers: one eDirectory base server (Certificate Server and root partition), then at least one DSfW server (DHCP, DNS, eDir, domain controller), then file server and Filr server.
It seems I can install into a new tree and choose the non-name-mapped deployment. Is this a popular choice?
Does this provide flexibility or limit it?
I read the following statement "Novell doesn't support installing other Novell products within a Domain Services for Windows (DSfW) partition." at Novell Doc: OES 11 SP1: Domain Services for Windows Administration Guide - Unsupported Service Combinations
I think that if I choose a non-name-mapped install then the entire new eDirectory tree will live inside the DSfW partition, or was that statement meant for name-mapped setups? Does that mean that we would not be able to install ZenWorks, Filr or GroupWise into the new tree? If true this suggests non-name-mapped setups are more limiting than name-mapped setups, and probably to be avoided.
Thanks for the free wisdom.
Background:
There is an existing Netware server 6.0 serving about 20 users as a file server but there doesn't appear to be any interest in migration or coexistance. A fresh clean tree is a core element of the plan so far. I'm thinking of three or four OES servers: Two DSfW servers (DHCP, DNS, eDir, domain controllers, SLP), a file server and a Filr server.
There is other stuff in the environment, including openSUSE DHCP and DNS, SLES application server, various other servers for databases and web stuff, Windows domain for 4 users to use Remote Desktop Services. A bunch of Windows desktops and a proliferation of mobile devices (hence interest in Filr is drive the change right now).
Hopefully over time the other servers will be part of the new eDirectory tree for authentication and ease of management.
If I choose a name-mapped setup, I think I need to install 4 or 5 servers: one eDirectory base server (Certificate Server and root partition), then at least one DSfW server (DHCP, DNS, eDir, domain controller), then file server and Filr server.