locked
Forfront Client Security - Little solution RRS feed

  • Question

  •  

    Hi,

     

    I have a small LAN with less than 10 clients - I just received the ForeFront Client Security with MAPS and I recognize during the first part of installation, that ForeFront needs rather "heavy" hardware:

     

    What is the best scenario to implement ForeFront in a little network?

    Can I install all compoments on one Server?

    Shouldn't I install some specific components of ForeFront?

    Is a Server with ForeFront for very small business 100% busy, concerning performance?

     

    Thanks for your hint

    Patrick

     

    Tuesday, October 30, 2007 11:47 AM

All replies

  • Typically, FCS can be installed in various topologies. In a small environment, it is common to install all components on a single server. However, doing so will definetly place burdens on the server. Having SQL 2005 with Reporting Services, MOM and WSUS all on one guy is not every security administrator's cup of tea. I have improved server performance by running SQL 2005 on another box. Do the same with WSUS and you would definetly see improvements. Microsoft has excellent documentation on designing and planning FCS installation on their website.

     

    Cheers

    Harshad

    Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:38 PM
  • Hello!

    With a 10 seat LAN, are you looking for the central monitoring and reporting that FCS provides?  If not, you may consider Windows Live OneCare.  OneCare uses the same core protection engine as FCS, but does not have any server components (and therefore no local centralized reporting or mgmt)

     

    If you do want the full FCS package, a single-server topology is definitely the way to go.  You may want to configure your clients to contact Microsoft Update directly (you don't have to install WSUS)

     

    Thanks

    Chris

    Forefront Client Security PM

    Wednesday, October 31, 2007 5:30 PM
  • Yes you are right. Single server topology is definitely the way to go. US is optional but it would be very efective in case monitoring and approval of updates before being pushed out is desired.
    Thursday, November 1, 2007 1:55 AM