Situation:

2 sites that require no connection to the server at a 3rd main office site on a daily basis. The computers are just terminals to access a custom version of Anteil's RMS that is hosted off-site. There is no network firewall or etc. Would it be more beneficial just to do a LAN at each site and use networked printers that way? There is an issue of connectivity when a networked printer is connected through the server to the other comps. Also, not sure of how this effects anything, the IPs being used by one of the sites is outside the DHCP scope that the network has defined. Doesn't this essentially negate the entire purpose of a centralized server network? The network connectivity is spotty every once in a while for 1 of the sites. I'm really hoping it's not the ethernet cables that they have running under the floorboards

Suggestions?

3/5/2010 3:34:17 PM

I have no idea what all that means... and I troubleshoot shitty networks for a living.

... on wait .. I found the reason for so much confusion:

"Major : Accounting & Business Administration"

[Edited on March 5, 2010 at 4:12 PM. Reason : .]

3/5/2010 4:11:09 PM

Quote :

"ON WAIT"

Yeah, my bad. I tried to make it short and to the point. Stream of consciousness etc.

3/5/2010 7:30:36 PM

Quote :

"2 sites that require no connection to the server at a 3rd main office site on a daily basis"

Read that first sentence .... "no connection" "on a daily basis" ... ???. Most of us in Tech Talk try to help each other out. Repost and make it a long post if you have to, otherwise, you won't get many responses.

[Edited on March 6, 2010 at 5:44 AM. Reason : .]

3/6/2010 5:44:25 AM

That may be the worst problem description I've ever read.

3/6/2010 7:56:04 AM

Quote :

"WORST PROBLEM DESCRIPTION"

But seriously, you didn't make any sense. Try again?



[Edited on March 6, 2010 at 8:23 AM. Reason : .]

3/6/2010 8:23:12 AM

Quote :

"That may be the worst problem description I've ever read. "

agreed

quit trying to use big words, tell us what the fuck you're trying to accomplish and what you have to work with.

3/6/2010 10:30:35 AM

Oh my fucking god... I just had an aneurysm reading that.

3/6/2010 11:01:54 AM

couldnt read past 1.5 sentences, and that was an honest effort

3/6/2010 11:45:46 AM

Yeah... try posting again in English.

3/6/2010 12:53:04 PM

Quote :

"That may be the worst problem description I've ever read."

3/6/2010 2:19:31 PM

Quote :

"That may be the worst problem description peer assistance I've ever read seen."

3/6/2010 2:24:22 PM

let me guess ... you actually understood what he was trying to say, didn't you.

3/6/2010 3:29:51 PM

Since they don't need to connect on a daily basis, why not implement RFC1149.

3/6/2010 5:35:45 PM

I'm not quite sure what I wrote. UPDATED PROBLEM SCOPE:


There are currently 2 stores and 1 back-office location that are managed within the same network. The 2 stores have no need to connect to anything on the network with the exception of networked printers at these locations. All business is handled through a Retail Management System which is located on the host company's servers. The computers are essentially used for accessing the RMS through a web browser and printing to networked printers. Time clock punch ins and etc are also done via ADP's site. There is an issue with network connectivity at 1 of the stores. Would it just be easier to run a LAN for each of the 2 stores. The back-office location that currently houses the server will be sold in the coming months, which has them asking me (I'm really hired for accounting but apparently run the IT dept) what would be the best for a continuing operation. I will only be with them for a month or two. Ideally, they want to run an environment where the computers are used to simply access the web browser based RMS, as well as networked printers. They only really need to be connected to printers that are actually within the location. For example, store A doesn't really need to print to store B's printer, but it'd be nice every once in a blue moon. How should I proceed?

3/8/2010 8:42:14 PM

which networking classes have you taken and/or books have you read? i'll avoid those

3/8/2010 8:53:51 PM

jesus christ

3/8/2010 9:20:05 PM

you know what this thread needs - a diagram - that'd definitely spice this up quickly

3/8/2010 9:22:58 PM

If you can’t physically run a cable from the 2 sites, then I don’t see why there is a question of “not having internet” at the sites (which is what I presume you mean by “just be a LAN”).

You must have both sites connected to a network that the RMS is on. This could be a LAN, if you can physically run networking cables between the RMS and the 2 sites.

Otherwise, all the sites (RMS, site 1, site 2) need connection to the Internet through an internet service provider, and via a gateway of some sort, let them share printers, and access the web server.

It may be something as simple as a Linksys router with the proper ports forwarded, or you may need a legitimate server at each location handling the various services.

[Edited on March 8, 2010 at 9:32 PM. Reason : ]

3/8/2010 9:32:24 PM

here's the magical answer you should give them: "i dont know"

3/15/2010 10:01:09 AM

Quote :

"what would be the best for a continuing operation"

3/15/2010 2:17:03 PM

3/15/2010 3:42:35 PM

wtf is this nonsense, i read that crap like 4 times

3/15/2010 9:49:00 PM

Yeah, I think the reason why we have all been so mean is that we all actually tried to understand what the dude is attempting to explain ... no use ...

3/15/2010 10:09:03 PM

I answered my own question in trying to reword this a third time lol. Let's stop bttting before it becomes a meme

3/15/2010 10:12:38 PM

RMS at host site separate networks but together internet lan friendly IT change

that is what i got out of it. kind of like a pearl jam song. the words don't really make sense.

3/15/2010 10:19:48 PM