|
|
I have vanilla VM's of Server 2008 and Server 2003 ready to use for WSUS.
Can someone tell me the reasons I might chose one over the others for my
WSUS host at my datacenter.
Note: My three remote locations are running Server 2003 as DC/File/Print but
not sure I would even need them to have WSUS, in fact I'd rather not.
I hope I can have one server here at the data center and for remote
locations I can force the clients to get their updates directly from the
internet but I control which updates and when to deploy them from the
datacenter.
thank you for your suggestions.
-Bob
|
|
Well, Server 2003 has less than 21 months of mainstream support left. If
you're purchasing an extended support agreement, then I guess that doesn't
matter too much to you. Otherwise, it's one less Server 2003 box to worry
about upgrading when July 2010 comes around.
"just bob" <kilbyfan[ at ]aoldotcom> wrote in message
news:356dnb1oC5Oy5o3UnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d[ at ]supernews.com...
[Quoted Text] >I have vanilla VM's of Server 2008 and Server 2003 ready to use for WSUS.
>Can someone tell me the reasons I might chose one over the others for my
>WSUS host at my datacenter.
>
> Note: My three remote locations are running Server 2003 as DC/File/Print
> but not sure I would even need them to have WSUS, in fact I'd rather not.
>
> I hope I can have one server here at the data center and for remote
> locations I can force the clients to get their updates directly from the
> internet but I control which updates and when to deploy them from the
> datacenter.
>
> thank you for your suggestions.
>
> -Bob
>
|
|
<youngec[ at ]hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OyEMB4pPJHA.4224[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > "just bob" <kilbyfan[ at ]aoldotcom> wrote in message
> news:356dnb1oC5Oy5o3UnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d[ at ]supernews.com...
>>I have vanilla VM's of Server 2008 and Server 2003 ready to use for WSUS.
>>Can someone tell me the reasons I might chose one over the others for my
>>WSUS host at my datacenter.
> Well, Server 2003 has less than 21 months of mainstream support left. If
> you're purchasing an extended support agreement, then I guess that doesn't
> matter too much to you. Otherwise, it's one less Server 2003 box to worry
> about upgrading when July 2010 comes around.
In general, I agree with the responder -- use the latest operating system
platform whenever possible;
however, there is one platform specific reason I'd still recommend using
Windows 2003 to run WSUS....:
WSUS was written to operate in an IIS6 environment. Placing WSUS on Windows
Server 2008 with IIS7 requires you to install the IIS6 compatibilty modules.
Now, if this is going to be a WSUS_exclusive server, then this may not be
that big of a deal; but if the IIS7 server is going to host other
websites/webservices, then I'd question whether you want to clutter up an
IIS7 environment with the IIS6 compatibility modules.
Given the complexities in "relearning" IIS administration (IIS7 vs IIS6),
I'd opt for not cluttering up my IIS7 installation with
backward-compatibility modules, unless I absolutely had to do so. So, if I
had a Win2003/IIS6 server available to allow me to avoid cluttering up a
(potentially multipurpose?) Win2008/IIS7 server with the IIS6 modules, I'd
opt not to clutter up my IIS7 environment.
While I have no information at this time about future versions of WSUS, so
these comments are purely speculative...: We have seen two releases of WSUS,
both with 1 service pack each, in the past 46 months; there was 27 months
from the release of WSUS 2 to WSUS 3, and it's now been 18 months since the
release of WSUS 3. I'd be surprised if an IIS7-native version (WSUS 4?)
wasn't already deep in the pipeline (given that Win2008/IIS7 has been RTM
for several months now) and released by the end of 2009 -- so you'd be
looking at a short term implementation of Win2003, and it's likely the
IIS7-native version would be available several months before mainstream
support for Win2003 expires.
>> Note: My three remote locations are running Server 2003 as DC/File/Print
>> but not sure I would even need them to have WSUS, in fact I'd rather not.
And I would agree. *Unless* you have less than 5kb/sec bandwidth per PC at a
remote site, there's no need to place a remote WSUS server. If you do have
constrained bandwidth, however, the pre-existing server infrastructure is a
good reason to deploy the remote WSUS server to reduce bandwidth
consumption.
--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP(x2), MCTS(x5), MCP(x7), MCBMSP
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin
|
|
|