Re: How to do this?

From: John (john_at_nospam.infovis.co.uk)
Date: 12/23/03 

Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:58:16 -0000

Thanks for the very comprehensive analysis of the situation. Appreciate that
very much.

As for access, all we are looking for is some very selected information to
be *viewed only* by some external users, so hopefully the load on access
will not too bad. In that case, would another server machine with IIS do the
trick (presumably it has to be win2k server and not win2k professional)?
Also, presumably it will be a member of the sbs domain. Also I presume the
best way is to get a second broadband connection for the new web server?

Thanks

Regards

"Jeff Middleton [SBS-MVP]" <jeff@cfisolutions.com> wrote in message
news:uBN6eYWyDHA.1196@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Since this is SBS 2000 you are hosting from, I'll start by clarifying to
> anyone who isn't familiar with the SBS platform (but maybe was
cross-posted
> into this discussion) that the SBS suite include ISA Server (firewall),
SQL
> Server, Exchange Server and the SBS is required to be the root AD server
as
> a Domain Controller.
>
> I'm replying at this point of the thread just to "include" the previous
> comments made by others. As John Timney stated succinctly, I wools say you
> probably can do this technically, you probably shouldn't do it
> professionally.
>
> SBS is a very busy box by default, a lot of stuff going on. Some people
> consider SBS to be a house of cards, ready to collapse if you aren't
> careful. I don't really subscribe to that thought, but it's a fair
comment,
> particularly when you start to extend the included technologies in the way
> you have indicated....frankly, in the wrong way.
>
> SBS 2000 is intended to be a server that is a gateway to the web as a
> firewall via ISA, and to provide intranet functionality to the LAN with up
> to 50 users. This is what you are doing. The problem is that you are then
> wanting to do all that....and next you want to make it a fully functional
> public web server, except you don't want to do that in the efficient way
> that webservers would be designed....using SQL under the hood, nor are you
> proposing to do that in the secure manner that represents a best
> practice....a web server in DMZ.
>
> Therefore, if I were being called in as a consultant, I would look at what
> you are outlining and play the devils advocate of why this is a bad idea.
> You are taking technology and not using it the way any best practice for
the
> individual components would be recommended. This is a lot like not using
> best practices like never use a sharp knife and cut toward your hand,
never
> user a screwdriver as a chisel, never store dangerous chemicals in a reach
> of children in your house. It's fine if you say...but I'm only slicing
> butter, I'm just knocking caulk off of a tile, and I don't have any kids.
>
> Let's look at a few of the best practice concepts that you aren't
following:
>
> - Don't expose shared resources on a DC to the web
> - Don't expose and intranet site to the web
> - Always place public IIS webserver in DMZ
> - Isolate your front-end and backend web servers, and use a secure method
> for handling the backend server such as SQL
> - Minimize the functions on a webserver so that you can lock it down as
much
> as possible if it's exposed to the public, and particularly don't install
> any applications not required for it's role as a web server.
> - Don't run ISA on a server on a DNS server, DC, Exchange Server, or SQL
> Server, and particularly not on one that you are exposing. (This is that
> special rule about SBS servers where you are violating every rule of
> deployment with ISA, except that the SBS product is tuned to use ISA as a
> firewall to protect this server in those roles. However, at the point that
> you expose all of these functions to traffic entering from all interfaces,
> you really have gone over the edge of sanity in deployment.
> - Don't place business critical assets on a server directly hosting public
> and non-authenticated access.
> - Avoid placing business critical assets required to keep your company
> running hour by hour in a role that increases the risk of critical
failures,
> or extended recovery times. Diffuse your risk by protecting and
simplifying
> the most critical assets you have to improve your management options, and
> critical response repair options.
>
> I know, this is the point where someone asking the questions you are
asking
> typically says "But if all this is such a bad set of practices, them MS
> should be telling people that they can buy an SBS to run their whole
office
> from in this way." Well, yeah, that's true, and I personally wish that MS
> didn't give people the impression that what you are asking is even
> plausible, much less supported. The fact is that SBS includes a broad
range
> of products, but I can assure you that it's not the thought that MS dev
has
> that anyone is going to deploy a server using everything that is possible
to
> do with any individual component, and yet do all of those things
> concurrently on a single machine. It's not that the technology would
prevent
> it, it's more that common sense would suggest to you that at some point
you
> have to look at the cost of the entire company depending upon a group of
> critical technologies.....and you have to see that you are overextending.
>
> A company with 20 users internally and another 10 users remotely is
> presumably paying something on the order of $3000-8000 per day in salary,
> right? Oh, I suppose it could be less than that, but realistically, if
this
> company existed only to pay 20 people $5/hr each, and it had no other
> business assets, therefore no other cashflow considerations, well then you
> might have an argument for why you don't see the return on investment
> arguments for adding more assets in order to better protect the assets you
> are already producing income with.
>
> Far to many small businesses fail to realize when they are underfunding
> their business in terms of technology investments. Many SMBs see only cost
> with the equipment, and they don't see productivity, or perhaps they don't
> see how to measure the productivity as a separate distinction from "what
if
> this stopped working". The fact that SBS is as reliable as it is makes it
> seem that it would be reasonable to run this one server right up to the
> point that you have the CPU at 70%, the disk drives at 80% capacity, and
the
> users all being delayed just about 30 milliseconds less than the time it
> takes for them to not lose their attention to their tasks. That's just
> insane. There's no room to grow the business, or extend to the next
> opportunity.
>
> It's inherent in any business that there's a point where you have to look
at
> what you have that is working really well and then decide that you don't
> push it further, you reinvest in the next place to grow the next thing to
> support your business needs continuing to be met without increasing risk
or
> dramatically complicating the complexity of maintaining the overall
> environment.
>
>
> With all these things considered in total, I think you really should be
> looking at a minimum of one more server, possible two, plus another
firewall
> to create a DMZ. You probably need a dedicated IIS server if that's the
best
> way to deploy your applications forward to the web. However, I would
> question whether or not you really are doing yourself a favor by using a
web
> server interface to front end an Access database if the Access database is
> really that critical to your customer solution and not something you can
> work around with separate SQL presentation. Maybe you need to look at
> putting a Terminal Server in for the external connections, but this could
> depend upon whether the remote connections are by trusted and
authenticated
> users, or not.
>
> The situation you describe sounds to me more like a scenario where I'm not
> sure that you are looking at a big enough picture to understand what your
> best options are for the company.....not for the technology, but for the
> company. I would be inclined to want to know more about where this company
> is going...and coming from...to understand if the way that you are
handling
> this process is leading you into a box you will regret, and maybe your
best
> options need to be putting a lot more on the table than just another IIS
> server.
>
>
>

Quantcast