Re: Limited AD Integration
- From: "Mark Strangways" <strangconst@xxxxxxxx>
- To: "[ISAserver.org Discussion List]" <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:44:56 -0400
Jim,
You must work for a computer hardware supplier :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Harrison" <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ISAserver.org Discussion List]" <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 6:26 PM
Subject: [isalist] Re: Limited AD Integration
> http://www.ISAserver.org
>
>
> 1. The stateful inspection isn't the RAM -grabber, it's active caching.
> 2. ISA effectiveness isn't measured by RAM, although installing it over
> W2KAS on 128MB RAM will drag its figurative butt across the carpet.
>
> 3. For that amount of traffic:
> Single 1GHz proc
> 768MB RAM for caching support;
> calculation: 256MB (base) + (128MB + (.5M * users)) = 584MB, round up
> to next 128MB for room in the overhead
> Drives (LVD-160 SCSI, of course):
> 1 9GB system drive
> 1 18GB cache drive (keep them separated if you like your hair)
>
> HTH,
> Jim Harrison
> MCP(2K), A+, Network+, PCG
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Skeeve Stevens" <skeeve@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "[ISAserver.org Discussion List]" <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 3:00 PM
> Subject: [isalist] Re: Limited AD Integration
>
>
> http://www.ISAserver.org
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Harrison [mailto:jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Subject: [isalist] Re: Limited AD Integration
>
> > "Limited" means it plays nice with AD security (users,
> > groups), but has no real dependency on the AD itself. It
> > would play just as nice with an NT4 domain. If you're
> > building a very small deployment behind ISA (< 200 clients),
> > then a single fast, fat server would probably suffice. I'd
> > still recommend that you have a second one installed for failover.
>
> 2nd one means a huge cost blowout if you want them centrally managed...
> i.e. you will need Enterprise.
>
> Company I am with doesn't really believe in failover... we just back
> things up... yes I know that sucks, but they are cheap asses... which is
> why we didn't go Firewall-1 ;-)
>
> The number of clients will be about 400... but with low usage. As long
> as I can still set up the security using NT/AD groups, then the
> standalone will be fine.
>
> As for hardware... what are we talking about?
>
> I was looking at a rack mounted Compaq DL?? with a 1G PIII and either
> 512MB of Ram, or more if needed... also probably about 36G of disk.
>
> With the stateful inspection, I have heard you need more Ram the more
> effective you want that to be... is that true?
>
> PS... Thanx Jim for your help...
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> You are currently subscribed to this ISAserver.org Discussion List as:
> jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> You are currently subscribed to this ISAserver.org Discussion List as:
strangconst@xxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')
Other related posts:
