IT Employment

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Peer to Peer vs. Client/Server

0 helpful
29 replies

by leightonn

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I have been given the task to set up a network of about four computers for a medium sized business. They want to computerise their operations for greater efficiency. I am thinking of going with a peer to peer network as the main function would be to share printers.
How does one decide whether to go with a peer to peer network as opposed to a client/server network.

29 replies

by tekguy610

I would defintitely got p2p. UNLESS, they are decided to grow within the next year or so. I would discuss this in detail with the high ups. If so then go client-server. Otherwise 10 or less. stay with p2p. Again though if you need centralized security. Client-server. Make sense? I think I am confusing myself at this point.

by lotsofchunks

If you don't know the answer to this then youu are definitely the wrong person for the job, maybe put a few Tandy's in a circle with armslength so you don't hurt yourselves passing the floppys in a 'token ring' network hehehehehe.......

Perhaps you should price it out fellow.

by ebob

In fact, most networks I've seen are actually a bit of both. And that may be appropriate for your users.

Setup TCP/IP print servers at each printer so that to print, it is not necessary that "Judy's" PC be running.

Setup a suitable switch. Configure shares, if this is relevant.

Setup a router and firewall on an appropriate ISP connection (DSL?).

As you described it, this will be a good start.

Then, when they want to share files, or implement some sort of groupware, you can just add a "server" component.

PS: what about "email"? The simplest approach is to take out some accounts with your ISP. In fact, your ISP can host the domain and the SMTP service for a reasonable charge, with virtually no admin issues for the users.

by timmitchell

If you've only got 4 computers on the network, and the primary reason for the network is print sharing, I would definitely use peer to peer networking. However, I disagree with the reply above regarding TCP/IP printing.... NetBEUI is much faster ona small network than TCP/IP, and it's the best bet for a small network. Also, I don't think you'll need a switch for this small network... if you're connected with a high-speed connection, a small DSL router will do just fine.

The best thing about this solution is, that if later you need to add a file server or domain controller, it can be done fairly seamlessly. The infrastructure will already be in place, just install/configure the server, create the shares and move the data to the server, and add workstations to the domain (if domain model is used).

Good luck!

by dtsobel

I am a network admin and also do a lot of consulting on the side.

In the long run, C/S will be cheaper. One day of downtime or the lost of data that should have been put on a server, but was not and was not backed will probably cost the buzinessmore then what they saved on going with P/P

With hardware cost so cheap, a C/S is the only way to go.

I have gone into so many sites that have p/p and it's a mess. Your clients will end up putting data files everywhere. Data does not get backup up and it's impossible to make sure that everything is getting backed up.

Everytime i go to one of these clients, I have to see if there is any files not being kept in a central location.

Murphy's law usually strikes and you will be theone to get blamed.

It's best to do it right the first time!

by chrisms

I work as a network designer and this is one of the main things I need to decide.
The first factor is always Cost. Main servers cost a lot of money!
Secondly, ask how many users do they have, why do they need a network and are they all in the same office or spread out.
If they have less than 10 computers, I believe in peer to peer, if they want to share periphials, peer to peer, if they all sit next to each other, per to peer.
Anything diferent has to be client/server.
hope this shed somelight.:-)

by lordinfidel

Regardless of the points of too few clients for client/server. In the long run Client/Server is actually easier to manage and less troublesome than a peer to peer.

Plus you will not have to worry about transitions when your network takes on moreclients.

Basically, in any sort of office enviroment, it should always be a client/server. NO MATTER WHAT! If you have 2 or more systems, then go to Client/Server.

Place *ALL* data on the server. Data should never be contained on a client machine. The server should always be backed up.

If data is not stored in a central location and is on a client machine, get it off of it.
If that client machine goes down, so does your data.

A client machine has 99% more chances of dying then aserver based OS, (NT4 srvr) that users can't install stuff on.

tcp/ip should be the *ONLY* protocol used on the network. (use a pvt class such as 10. or 192.168.) No netbios, nwlink, etc!

Sharing printers is still done at the client level, but now you will be able to control who has access to which printers.

Always walk on the side of caution and reliabilty.

Peer to Peer is all bad and has been all bad since it's conception.

by ebob

The important issue here has to do with the various faces of accountability in a business or other professional environment. This is a tough thing to get through to the users, or clients, however.

I have often found that if I add these concerns in the initial Project Brief, the users are often willing to shell out the extra bucks, up front. They are a lot less happy if they have to come to me in 4 months, asking "so how are we getting backups?", and I have to ask them for another 20G's.

There's an old expression that it's "easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission", but with the corporations I've been involved, quite the opposite is true.

So if you can get it approved, drop a proper server in place, and hang a DLT off of it, from the start (as 'Lord I' suggests).

by ebob

We've had this discussion before: which protocols?

I am one of the other ones that say "The fewer the better!" If you can get the work done with TCP/IP, you'll be miles ahead. Only install other protocols (including NetBEUI, IPX/SPX, etc.) if absolutely necessary.

The benefit is in reduced administration, which results in reduced headaches, and reduced costs.

Of course, there will be differences of opinion on this. So I refer you to try searching for other threads on this topic.

by nicknielsen

P2P is indeed much less secure/reliable/pick-your-positive-adjective than client/server, but it has the advantage of being quick and easy to establish.

My recommendation is to point out all the shortcomings of p2p vs. client/server, project thelong-term (5-year) costs for both (as best you can), then ask the boss which way he wants to go.

And the boss will ask, "Which one costs less to set up?"

Shortsighted beancounters usually run the world. Sad, but true.

by lordinfidel

I usually put it in terms that they can understand.

If they do not go with my reccomendation, they will generally pay for it down the line in downtime. No managers like lost time due to system failures.

Managers love thew word efficency. Because the more efficent you are, the more productive you are, which in turn means the more money they can make.

When the network is down then no one works. They then lose money by the minute both in employee payroll and profits that could be made.

Stick along those lines and they will see your way. A little money up front can save tons in the future.

by dlongan

I was wondering if someone would mention the need for backups! I totally agree with lordinfdel, company data should never reside on a client. The users can and will restart their workstations anytime a problem occurs, thus anyone connected with a open file will get trashed if not notified. Of course if the problem is severe enough it could prevent any open files from being closed.

For the small cost of $2-3k for a low end server w/backup it's the smart thing to do.

I will disagree withthe fact that netbios is a better protocol for 10 clients. it's faster and has less adminstrative costs.

by avswamy

halo neleigh,

if less than 6 to 7 computer network prefer only peer to peer unless admin has to maintanence will be more, here once it is configured normally there is nothing to see for maintanence , and which is fast also because there is sharedresources and traffic, here traffic is limited to sharing computers only, and sharing of printers and internet connection can also done no third party softwares required for this, all are influced in win98se.
swamy

by mikem

In a small lan of about 5-7 computer is fine for a peer setup,using NETBEUI,because its fast for small networks.If you have more than 7 computer you should use client server.
This will allow the clients to have security and set up small groups on the server to provide low cost troubleshooting and less traffic on the server,also you should set up a print server for the shared printer using jet direct boxes.This is cheap and also safe for you and your users.You can setup home folders for all users on the client server network and install a tape backup service.

by lordinfidel

This is a true case study that I will share.

I am still consulting for this company as of today and their network is still up and running.

A property mgmt company for several years was running a P2P network. They have never had a "real" adminto oversee their network. They utilized an "in-House" employee to take care of all of their computer needs including repairs, networking and architecture.

Needless to say, their network was down more often than it was up. No matter how many different client end systems they threw at it, it still crashed. Finally they brought in a consultant (not me) and the consultant wanted to charge them a few thousand to fix their network. He even gave them a proposal for a client/server set up.

But they did not go with him. Thinking that they can just do it on their own.

by lordinfidel

Another year passed and this small network of 5 machines moves into a new office. So they hire a consultant that works for one of the owners acquantinces. They begin work on the new office, getting it wired right with ethernet. They did some goodthings like buying a decent dell server and some dell client machines.

But they did alot of other things wrong. Like having win98 on the new dells, using netbeui and tcp/ip. Not setting up the domain correctly, etc, etc....

I happened to stop by when they were setting this up (Being friends with the owner), noticed they were having problems and offered my assistance, free of charge.

Well 2 years later, I am still consulting for that company. (I charge now a small monthly fee). After re-architecting their network; throwning NT on all client machines, locking down the machines, installing the domain correctly and setting up their file structure and backup system.

Their network has had a 100% uptime since it went into operation.

And why? It has a good foundation. A solid foundation is the key to any good network.

The old rules of under 10 users P2P no longer apply in todays world of computing. Users can and will install anything they feel like.

A properly desinged small network needs only "1" day of general maintenance. I usually stop in for 15 minutes every month, check the back up jobs, check the event logs and reboot the server.

I strongly urge aspiring admins to take my advice and learn from the above. Abandon the P2P network and go straight to the client/server.

Never let the client dictate how their network should be architected. If they knew how to do it then they would not need you.
You don't tell your mechanic how to fix your car,don't tell us how to fix/architect your network.

Just some things to think about. I hope you all can take something out of this real life case study.

by trapeziod

Ultimately, hardware is not that expensive these days. It would be wise to invest in a file server with tape drive to store all files. That way they'll always be backed up.

You could still use a peer to peer software architecture, just force all files to a file system. It could be a workstation with beefed up disk or a Network Attached Storage device like a Snap server from Quantum.

Either way, a centralized file system is easier to protect with a good backup schedule.

by torque2k

I agree here, no matter if you decide to P2P or C/S, a NAS server is a great addon to any network. Seagate's NASRAQ is a good choice, inexpensive, and can double as a DHCP server! Plus, it's got SCSI builtin, and a web-browser administrative screen for backups, adding users, etc.

Or, a good Linux-based server would help, too. Try e-Smith from Mitel; it's a free downloadable (and bootable) .ISO CD-ROM, Redhat 7.1-based, fairly easy to configure, web administerable from ANY PC on the network, and can be expanded upon with future growth of the company.

http://www.e-smith.org/downloads

by magpiper

Go ahead and do the P2P. It will be good for your competition and could be harsh on your pocket book.

When the workstation crashes and all data is lost or stolen. They will file a lawsuit and take everything you don't own. In the mean time your competator will be providing them with a client/server solution.

If they don't like the client/server solution now, they will after the first data loss. However don't let the client learn that lesson at your expense. This is why it pay's to know what you are doing and be sure as to why you are doing it. Never let a client's budget get in the way. On the same token don't overkill with un-needed hardware etc. Often Microsoft admins overkill small business's with quad processor's and too much memory. Remember you make your money off of services, not selling of hardware.

Anyone replying to your message saying P2P is ok, is wrong. I will not take any client that has a P2P unless there converting. As soon as they realize how nice it is to share apps, files and printers. They will go "HOG WILD", by then it's too late.

Go with a server with redunant drives, power supplies and a SCSI tape storage solution. You will live long and prosper with this advice.

by timmitchell

I will concede that client/server is a safe bet in many, if not most, cases. However, there are some small companies that can benefit from the cost savings and ease of implementation of a P2P network.

Case study: A client of mine, very small police department; single PC, no network at all, dial-up internet connection. I was hired to deploy one PC and create a small LAN with the two computers; file and print sharing were the primary goals in creating the LAN. There are very few critical files stored on the PCs; until I developed a small Access database for their incident reports, they did all reports by hand (from a printed Word document).

This police department, like many small organizations, does not have the money to spend on tape drives, RAID arrays, and such. They needed to be able to share files (very few), share a single inkjet printer, and share a single dial-up connection.

Did I pitch the idea of deploying a server in a C/S configuration? Of course! However, this client didn't have the money to do that. There needs were minimal, and I filled the need. You can't force a guy to buy a Cadillac if he can only afford a Chevy.

Oh, by the way, two years later the customer is still satisfied. I do onsite maintenance about 6 times a year, and the clients do their own backups on a Zip disk. Everybody's happy; everybody wins.

by dawest

I am a Consultant! Have been for 4 plus years and I now have all the clients I ever had. Some have been with me since day one. Peer networks are as good as the person that sets them up. The smallest Hard Drive I've used in a year is 20 Gigs, so the data from one machine is redundant on the other. The long and short of it is that you must do what the customer can afford! I have pitched high end Servers with DLTs and RAIDs, in fact I worked for an integrator a few years back and designed networks from the cases up, so yes the side that says that C/S (or more correctly server centric) networks are more secure, easier to manage.... is correct however if your customer has shallower pockets then you have to configure the Peer netork accordingly. One of the machines should have a copy of the data directories of each of the others and the balance of the machines need to have a copy of that machines data directories and one other. This effectivly gives you 3 copies of every data byte onthe network. Backups can happen with a Zip Drive if they are small, a CD-RW if they get bigger and if they need a tape drive then you need to sell the customer on the idea of a Server with a SCSI DLT if he thinks he needs it or not, if he has more then 700 Megs of data to back up it's time to get out of the Peer enviroment. So no matter what anyone says about this is always true or that is always true the only thing that is always true is that you will do what the customer can afford or they will be someone elses customer!
Best of Luck
David

by radiic

Its funny watching the consultants vs. the admins in this thread. Im sure its ovious who is who, but for those who have not figured it out yet. The admins are avocating C/S and the consultants are for P2P. I am an admin, so i think you know what my vote is.

Which ever you choose though...DO NOT ...Repeat DO NOT use NetBEUI. WHY Do I say this. Even if you are a consultant you should be able to follow this logic.

NetBeui is a non-routable protocol. Which means that it wont work in a multi-segment or multi-lan or Wan. By default you are telling your customer that you dont expect his company to grow to the point that it would require any type of routing protocol. But maybe there is a reason that you do that. Lets look at how youmake your scam, opps i mean money. (did i say that outloud)

With hardware prices dropping thru the floor, you mostly make your money on services that you provide, or dis-services. So the customer comes along and you do your little p2p setup, and gain the confidence of customer. Now they find out that they need more people and you pitch the server stuff. But since you didnt configure the network for this, now you get to pad the bill with all the hours you want, you explain to the customer that in the first setup you set it this way, now that you want this, it requires a different config. Wham...Talk about having your hand on the wallet.

Anyways you can see that I don't like consultants and I don't like NetBeui. But I guess consultants are good for one thing. After they screw up an install I get to go in behind them and clean up their mess and make it work the right way.

In the bond of Sys Admins
Rad

by timmitchell

...considering that if (assuming you read the first message of the thread) the user is referring to a four-workstation network.
Now I'll agree that for the network to grow to a multi-segment or LAN configuration, a switch to TCP/IP would be necessary to permit routing. However, the jump from a 4-station P2P to a WAN or multi-segment network is a HUGE jump; the fifteen minutes it would take me to change those 4 PCs from NetBEUI over to TCP/IP will be miniscule in comparison to the other expenses (routers, T1, add'l workstations, etc) that the client would incur for this massive network topology change.

And hey, you're assuming that consultants are money-grubbing mongers who only bid jobs that will assure them an ongoing income (I, too, have run across many of them). However, you can rest assured that there are some of us who prefer to earn an honest buck for an honest day's work. Some of us, particularly those who deal mostly with small businesses, churches, and other non-profits, have to make sure that our customers are happy in the present and for the long haul. Especially in my neighborhood, small-town America, a dirty businessman's reputation will certainly preceed him.

by dawest

Clean up what?
If you are a Sys-Admin why did your company hire a consultant to do anything? Maybe you are not much of a Sys-Admin? (oops did I say that out loud?)

by lordinfidel

Most of us admins do not let consultants on our network.

There are exceptions mind you, like a DBA or CCIE to do advanced WAN routing.

But for actual installs and architecture, doubt it very highly. Admins are generally very territorial when it comes to their network.

I beleive what he was saying, as I have been put in the same situation, after a consultant messes up a network, the owner of that network will ask him to come in and make it right.

Consultants are not all bad. I havefriends that do nothing else. But there is a difference between a guy who has never been an admin trying to consult and the guy who has eat, lived and breathed a network.

Who is better at architechure then? The guy who does maybe a small project a month, or the guy who does it 24/7/365.

You can install all the P2P networks with netbeui you want. But a Network Architect it makes you not.

There is a reason behind our madness. We know best.

by js1

I would go for the client/server.

Reasons:

--. If they want to expand there company they allready have a server.

--. All data stored on 1 machine wich can be secured very well if needed

--. Central point administration

But because it is onl for 4 users i guess it is a quite expensive project.

This discussion is closed to new replies.