180 likes | 194 Views
Learn about the implementation of Windows 2000 at the University of Bristol, including the current status, advantages and disadvantages, deployment problems, and future plans.
E N D
Windows 2000 at the University of Bristol Julius Clayton, University of Bristol Computing Service
Introduction • New operating system from Microsoft • Already arriving on new PCs • What UBCS intends to do about it
Topics of Discussion • Where we are now • Where we want to be • Pros and Cons of Win2k • Deployment Problems • Deployment Plans • Conclusions
Where we are now • Single Master Domain model • Not all departments subscribe • Windows NT4 recommended desktop OS • Significant % of Win3x, Win9x, Linux • Unattended installs for low maintenance • Software changes difficult to implement • Public computer rooms using secured NTW or WTS • Security policy implemented by hand-written scripts
Where we want to be • Less user management • Less OS maintenance • Less software maintenance • High availability and security for Windows systems • Less skill required in all of the above
Pros and Cons of Win2k • Advantages • Easier to roll out, administer and support • More secure • Supports new software, hardware, management • Disadvantages • Steep learning curve • Many benefits only come with “pure Win2k” • Cost
Deployment Problems • DNS: design and interoperation • AD: design and interoperation • Kerberos: design and interoperation • Acceptance (internal/external)
DNS - options • Replace Unix DNS with Win2k DNS • Not a realistic option for many sites • Integrate AD with existing Unix DNS • Added workload if DDNS is not adopted • Insecure if DDNS is adopted • Delegate domain to Win2k DNS and AD • Results in multiple names per machine
Integration: Existing host: IP: www.phy.bris.ac.uk NetBIOS: PHY-WWW Known to central DNS as IP: phy-www.bris.ac.uk (*) and IP: www.phy.bris.ac.uk (*) Requires manual update Delegation: Existing host: IP: www.phy.bris.ac.uk NetBIOS: PHY-WWW Known to AD as IP: phy-www.ad.bris.ac.uk (†) Known to central DNS as IP: www.phy.bris.ac.uk (†) Updates automatically DNS - Integration vs Delegation
AD - Design • Optimal design: • Single domain - low maintenance • Multiple sites - good control • Likely design: • Multiple domains - security boundaries • Single tree - low maintenance
AD - Implementation UOB PHY MED FEN Existing Setup
AD - Implementation UOB Add trust relationships PHY MED FEN Migrate master domain
AD - Implementation UOB Fold resources into master domain Switch off child domains PHY MED FEN Migrate resource domains
AD - Implementation Remote Site UOB LANGFORD MED FEN PHY Single AD domain with OUs
Kerberos - Implementation • Win2k Professional authenticating against Win2k Server uses Kerberos natively • Other Universities looking at MS Kerberos Unix Kerberos interoperability
Acceptance • Unix-vs-NT mentality unhelpful • Requirement to provide 24x7 services from Windows platform for Windows platform • Departmental integration • Loss of Domain Admin rights, control of OU • Devolution of authority cf. centralisation of responsibility
Deployment Plans • Insight migration programme • Design and implementation help from MS • Other Universities have shown success • Timescales • Upgrade central domain to Win2k Apr • Flip over to native mode (SID History) May • Populate AD, define policies Jun • Upgrade selected NTW, NTS Jul • Upgrade selected WTS Aug
Conclusions • Where we are now - Good basis for improvement • Where we want to be - Providing a better service, spending less time on routine maintenance • Pros and Cons of Win2k - Time and effort savings, but requires investment of time and cash • Deployment Problems - Infrastructure design and politics • Deployment Plans - Pilot over Easter vacation, rollout over Summer vacation if all goes well