I think I figured this out. I wanted to leave my findings here with the hope that others can correct anything I may have erred on or findings I have misinterpreted.
Testing Method: I set up a new vagrant install with a lamp stack (
sudo apt-get install lamp-server^). I first set up wp_cli -- the commandline tool akin to drush -- which sped along the download and set up of WP, converted it to a multisite install, and created two sub-blogs. From various post read, Mutlisite is happiest in the root folder of apache. Though this can be chanced with modifications to mod_rewrite rules.
After multisite was up and working with two sub blogs, I installed IWP to it's own folder (var/www/iwp) directly under root. I activated iwp-client under each individual sub-blog and the master blog.
Though you can connect the sub-blogs, IWP really only interacts with the main blog. The two sub blogs won't show updates and can't be individually backed up. Though backing up the main blog appears to copy the entire WP file tree and database.
To test updates, I copied a number of plug-ins and themes from web5 and placed the folders on the vagrant box, activated them in the Networks admin panel, took a back up in IWP, and then issued an update all command. All updates appeared successful. I then restored the previous backup, which showed
- WP mutli was set up as subfolder, not subdomain mode.
- IWP backs up to a hard-to-find, yet apache visible folder. Would this
be a security risk?
Results: Yes, IWP can nicely interact with the main blog of the Networks/Multisite install.
Next steps: I'd be continuing to test to see if I can have a larger, beefier VM that can host an array of both stand alone and perhaps an install or two of Multisite. Would IWP be the tool of choice to manage all installs on the server, or is it best to leave multisite to manage itself and let IWP manage the stand-alones.