Server - Client based networking for Family History Centres.

I wondered if there are any family history centres that have implemented networking on a Client - Server architecture rather than the normal peer to peer setup?

I'm not sure what you'd consider the difference to be. A server is nothing more then a peer that is dedicated to the server task. Especially if you're going to try and work with that you are given - WinXP and don't have Windows Server.

I am considering Server - Client to mean a network with user accounts stored on a central server with authentication into that server or a Windows Active Directory Domain etc.

That's going to require Windows Server ($$$). The church will not provide that. I have a system set up using WindowsXP for the server, so it's more of a dedicated peer. Personally, I don't see the benefits of Active Directory to be worth the cost.

As an alternative, you might look into ClearOS.

I kind of figured that the Church would not pay for Windows Server but I have set up a Server computer running Microsoft Small Business Server Essentials 2011 (with a licence I payed for myself). It is the most affordable for the Windows Server family (excluding the Home Server). I also have a book coming from Amazon to get up to speed on administering it. I am primarily a programmer, not a network administrator but it doesn't hurt to have more skills. I knew it was unlikely that many family history centres would have a client - server setup but there are some fairly large ones in the higher population and wealthier parts of the Church and so I wondered if there were some in existence.

I know about Linux (which I have been using myself) and Samba and that is what I originally planned to use but then considered that Windows is by design geared to work best with a Windows Server. Samba does not support running as an Active Directory Domain Controller (though it looks like it can join an existing domain). This is expected to be supported in the next version of Samba but that is a long term development project. Do I need this functionality? I don't 'need' it but it would allow for centralised administration of user accounts and group policy rather than having to administer it computer by computer. Even failing that it may be beneficial get some skills with Microsoft networking such that I could write of the cost of the Server operating system as "Tuition Fees".

carljokl wrote:I am considering Server - Client to mean a network with user accounts stored on a central server with authentication into that server or a Windows Active Directory Domain etc.

What benefits will you get from this configuration?

Something to consider is that whatever you set up, someone after you will have to maintain.

I would think that the initial setup will be the hardest part and the maintenance by comparison should be easier. It really depends upon the grade of whomever would eventually take over.

The benefits as I see it for Active directory is the centralisation of user accounts and the ability potentially for those users to roam around the network and still have access to their data. Active Directory is connected with Group Policy whereby I can potentially just set up the security controls and policies for all the computers on the domain and all the computers on the domain automatically are configured to that policy without having to duplicate it on each individual computer. I know that using a Server operating system is a bit overkill but even if it didn't work out and things had to be reverted, the network setup would be no worse than before.

My thinking it that it would be good if when a Patron logs in some login scripts run to map drives to point to centralised stores of Genealogy data (having been loaded onto the Server from the existing piles of CDs and DVDS currently in the Family History Centre. Beyond the Family History Centre, I have considered having user accounts storage space such that when Clerks and leaders log into the network they have access to their own network space which is accessible from whatever computer they log into i.e. the network share follows them around. I don't know how useful they would find this would remain to be seen as it is not something they would have used to having before unless they work in an office with a similar setup.

The primary goal with the server is to centralise the storage and access to the Genealogical date. Being able to provide access more elegantly is a bonus. Having invested in the server I am looking at trying to get the most use out of it. That is why I was looking at whether any HTTP access is possible to the server through the firewall.

carljokl wrote:I would think that the initial setup will be the hardest part and the maintenance by comparison should be easier. It really depends upon the grade of whomever would eventually take over.

I would propose there are very few people (if any) in any given stake qualified to maintain an Active Directory (AD) environment. Obviously, you seem up to the task, but it has to be a couple of orders of magnitude more complex than a simple workgroup with possible shared file storage and printing services.

Seriously, I've done a fair share of IT consulting (I'm currently writing this on my Windows Server 2008 home machine) but I wouldn't consider running AD at home (outside of a virtual world), as the work involved in the setup and maintenance would far outweigh the benefits. Where church PC's and networks are involved, my philosophy is: the simpler, the better. (Which usually translates into more time spent with the family. )

carljokl wrote:The primary goal with the server is to centralise the storage and access to the Genealogical date. Being able to provide access more elegantly is a bonus. Having invested in the server I am looking at trying to get the most use out of it. That is why I was looking at whether any HTTP access is possible to the server through the firewall.

Indeed your primary goal is a very worthy one -- making shared files accessible from each patron computer is very helpful. But that can be done with simple networking, and designating one PC as the "file server" without installing an expensive server operating system.

Having specific accounts and storage areas for each patron seems like a lot of work. Many patrons just drop in and want to use the FHC for a day or a couple of days. There are some regular patrons, certainly, but the overhead in dealing with these occasional users in terms of network access seems burdensome.

carljokl wrote:The benefits as I see it for Active directory is the centralisation of user accounts and the ability potentially for those users to roam around the network and still have access to their data.

The bulk of FHCs I know of have 2-3 user accounts: Admin, Patron and maybe Staff. Individual logins would be far more work then it's worth.

On the administrative computer side, we're still under the directive that all users of MLS must use the same login. Confidential information is not to be stored on hard drives, but physically locked away.

A centralized file storage area is nice, but I fail to see how a system as typically found in a business would be a good idea.

carljokl wrote:The benefits as I see it for Active directory is the centralisation of user accounts and the ability potentially for those users to roam around the network and still have access to their data

I like the idea of storing the CDs and other information that all patrons will need in a central location as well as networking the printers, but I am against storing personal information on FHC owned hardware.
I realize that you are trying to make it easier on the patrons, but remember that you are taking on the responsibility and/or liability of keeping the data safe.
What happens if someone gets into someone else's documents?
Or if the server crashes and loses the only copy of someone's genealogy?
Or if the file doesn't save correctly and the information/documentation for the 6 generations that they extracted from the film that just went back to SLC is lost?

I think it is a great idea in theory, but if something were to go wrong, you could have some unhappy patrons on your hands (at best).

Aaron Z

Multiple Patron accounts was not really what I had in mind. Any extra accounts would be for ward and stake roles.

The question of individuals getting into other individuals documents in particular if the Server were used for any Stake roles is one of the advantages of using a full Client - Windows Server approach. It is designed for proper security for controlling access to individuals personal documents. This doesn't work so well in a peer to peer environment because there isn't a central authoritative list of user accounts for the network. I hadn't really thought about accounts for specific Patrons but in many cases, if I put in place some scheduled backup, data on the network is probably in practice safer that in many members homes where they either don't know about backups or do not backup on a regular basis.

I know the whole active directory thing is fairly overkill, not least of which because Active Directory was a solution based on authenticating against several servers and only one Server computer exists on the network. If there is an issue with someone else taking over who is not competent in looking after that kind of setup I would take responsibility for downgrading to something they can handle. I don't have practical experience yet of how much work is involved in setting up Active Directory and the subsequent maintenance because I have not done it before and am still learning. I accept ahead of time this project might not work out. I started this thread because I was curious if anyone else had attempted anything like this before. There are other technical people in the Church with the knowledge to do it after all not to mention some of those having deep pockets to afford to pay for some things the Church won't provide.