General discussion

Locked

Servers with the same name

By spardus ·
Is this possible, and has anyone in reality, has anyone done so?

Have a NetWare server and Win2k Server in the same domain on the same sub-net with the same name?

Why am I asking this??? The goal is to replace our NetWare file server with a Win2k file server. Users have applications and data that reference the NetWare file server by UNC (\\ServerA\Datafiles\Bob\quotas.txt) for example. The easy thing for the user would be for use administrators to give the Win2k server the same name as the NetWare file server. But we are asking even if we were able to do this, would their applications function or break?

I'd be interested in hearing any comments regarding this topic. Thanks.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

2 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Bad idea

by JimBb In reply to Servers with the same nam ...

First of all, the idea behind NT shares is different from Novell volumes. A UNC to a novell server is \\server\volume\directory. Will you name your shares the same as your volumes?
Second, NetWare=IPX? Will you have both at the same time on line? Most likely you will, since you'll be transferring data? You'll have name conflicts...

Your client UNCs are the least of your worries. First make sure you won't mess up anything else, even before your clients start using those UNC shortcuts. And by having two similar names, you will, since quite some things refer to a name.

Why not let them co-exist for a while? When you gradually transfer your data, you can inform your users that they should check this and change that. After all, best practise would have been for them to use drive mappings, not UNCs. Mappings are safer, just imagine you have to split your server, or move to another volume/share.

Jim

Collapse -

Some answers to your questions

by spardus In reply to Bad idea

First - thanks for your feedback.
If nameing the shares after the volumes was all that it would take to make things click, then that's what we'd do.
We would have both on at the same time because it's going to be a gradual migration.

We did find that you are unable to map a drive at the client with both servers online. However, mapping the drive from a login script resolves that issue. We haven't tested the link in the file to see how it's going to resolve the UNC pointer.

You make a good point about future changes to the environment - it would be best to correct the issue at the user level now.

Back to IT Employment Forum
2 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums