Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Hosting Software and Control Panels : An NT control panel available in the Market

[rajiv]

Any NT control Panel available in the market?? Urgent Requirement

[Ironlung]

I heard that Sphera is working on a NT control panel right now but it wont be out for a while. Sorry

[DaveC#]

What exactly is the point on an NT or Win2k control panel? Surely Seagate proxy or PC anywhere are sufficent?

[BC]

Does PCAnywhere allow different users on different user level permissions? If so, then the CP's not needed. However, if not, for a user to be able to create POP accounts etc. then a CP of some variety is needed.

[inwks]

PCAnywhere would allow it, but it would basically be a bugger to maintain!

You need to define what you want the control panel to do, as a lot of things are already built into NT/2000. For example, IIS admin can be done already. You can rip parts of this out to build a per site admin tool, and so forth.

The email admin would by and large depend on what email tool you are using. If you use tools like iMail, they come with all the relevant control panels.

[DaveC#]

Originally posted by inwks
PCAnywhere would allow it, but it would basically be a bugger to maintain!

You need to define what you want the control panel to do, as a lot of things are already built into NT/2000. For example, IIS admin can be done already. You can rip parts of this out to build a per site admin tool, and so forth.

The email admin would by and large depend on what email tool you are using. If you use tools like iMail, they come with all the relevant control panels.

I just don't get it. Why do you need a control panel? NT offers multiple users and security levels.

Why does PC anywhere have to be a pain? All it takes is to be installend on the server and on your own workstation/Desktop.

Christ 10 of thousands of people use it everday to maintain their servers without difficulty.

[inwks]

Yes, but if you are selling shared space on the server, would you deploy PC Anywhere to the 100 people sharing the server? Doubt it. My reading of the situation is that it is for people sharing the same server to be able to set up and manage their little bit.

If not, I stand corrected. Personally, if this is the case I would recommend Windows 2000 and using the build in terminal services in administration mode.

[DaveC#]

This is the dedicated server forum- not how do I become the next Communitech forum.

The question you are really asking is:

How can I automate Virtual hosting on an NT server?

[inwks]

Could be in the wrong forum

OK, I went off in a tangent. In that case PC Anywhere is the best bet (normally gets bundled with the d.server anyway!), but the terminal services on w2k is much much much better....

[DaveC#]

I wouldn't use Win2k as a server until at least a couple of service patches down the line.

[inwks]

Then you don't know what you are missing. Have you performed any type of test lab on it? If you haven't, put it at the top of your to do list. In short, more efficient than IIS4, more reliable and some would say more secure, but in the standalone hosting environment the AD probably won't be as important as in the enterprise.

[DaveC#]

We have 5 y2k servers broadcasting internally so yes I do know them thanks.

[inwks]

Why your reservations?

[DaveC#]

Stabilty and security mostly. Also Y2k doesn't scale too nicely unless you start pumping a lot of capital into hardware.

I know it's been done to death but Linux/Unix (and in particular SUn-Solaris) is the only way to go IMVHO.

[inwks]

Security in what sense? In terms of loopholes - i.e. vunerabilities to certain types of attack? Granted loopholes take longer to fix than in linux, due to the nature of linux, but to my knowledge there aren't any gotcha's at present. Also, you have to lock down servers when they are in public environments, which seemingly most people do not do with the MS platform (they have the misconception that its ready of the box).

The comment about Sun-Solaris is intriging when preceeded by w2k not scaling without capital on hardware. Tests have proved that w2k scales better in the $/transaction benchmarks @ http://www.tpc.org than any other platform. Sun-Solaris is not exactly known as being a cheep solution. The non-ms platforms only fair well in the non-clustered solutions, which IMHO is required for high availability systems.

Personally I think its horses for courses, as the w2k/*nix arguement isn't exactly black and white. Some companies want *nix based, because they have the internal skills base to cater for it, and others want w2k for the same reason. Again, sometimes its down to cost, and sometimes its down to what the first consultant recommends. In the field, they both do as good a job as each other, just in different ways.

ps mind be worthwhile taking this onto another thread, as we seem to have gone off in a tangent