[Webinar] Learn how to a build a cloud-first strategyRegister Now

x
  • Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 181
  • Last Modified:

Server 2003 and Server 2000 Design

I would like to pick the brains of the EE group.  My company just bought a 2003 server with exchange.  We previously had a 2000 Small Business Server but out grew it.  I have a windows 2000 server license from one of our remote file servers.  

Current Config:
Windows 2000 Small Business Server

So here is my plan:
Windows 2000 Server
DNS, Active Directory, File Server, SQL, FTP

Windows 2003 Server
Exchange 2003, DNS, SPAM filter, Webserver, Sharepoint

The way our company is spread out is we have a corporate office with 50 users, one satellite office with 30 users and several small 3-10 person offices.  The uses for SQL are our accounting software that access the database via the sa account and the websites.  We have 110 users corporate wide so does anyone have any thoughts on the best way to tie all of this together and stay legal.  We have already purchased 110 user cals + exchange cals.  SQL should be able to get by with the 10 cals that came with it.  

Questions:
1) Is my current plan to go to two servers from a small business server going to work?
2) Is there a better way to do it?
0
blaze2342
Asked:
blaze2342
  • 4
  • 4
  • 3
  • +2
4 Solutions
 
Jay_Jay70Commented:
morning,

i would use the 2003 machine as a DC as its active directory features far outdo 2000 server

Windows 2003 Server
DNS, Active Directory, File Server, SQL, FTP

Windows 2000 Server
Exchange 2003, DNS, SPAM filter, Webserver, Sharepoint

scenario 2

what happens to the machine that currently is installed with SBS - if possible  i would have the 2000 and 2003 machines both as DC's and install exchange on the unpromoted SBS server
(i dont know if this is even possible with SBS server - havent touched it)


thats just my opinion on the matter, i will always keep a 2003 machine as my root DC and """""primary"""""" Server in reagrds to AD
0
 
Netman66Commented:
You have to use SBS as the root DC in the forest - this is the limitation of the product.  It only supports 50 users, so it's pretty much no good since you have more than that.

You can't operate SBS in workgroup for any extended period of time - it will start rebooting after the grace period.  I'm not even sure where you would find the grace period interval listed.


You can join the 2003 server to the SBS domain as a DC after running ADPREP, getting DNS working, making it a GC then turning off the SBS server and seizing all the roles over to the 2003 server - thereby preserving the domain.  You'll have to cleanup the metadata to remove all traces of the SBS server.

You also cannot (EVER) return the SBS server to the network or you're in for a world of hurt.


You also have the option of removing the restrictions of SBS by buying the Transition Pack - but this cost is the difference between the SBS cost and the full version cost.  You also have to consider that your CALs will have to be upgraded or replaced as well as licensing for Exchange and SQL (plus SQL CALs).  So it gets pretty prohibitive.

Beware the Exchange installation when doing all this.  You'll very likely need to stand up another server and move the mailboxes then remove the original server from the Org.

It's a lot to consider.

0
 
Jay_Jay70Commented:
ah i was just assuming that when you said you outgrew the 2000 SBS machine and that you had a license for 2000 server that you meant an additional one an that you would be getting rid of the SBS machine and installing 2000 Standars - apologies if i put you on the wrong course

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=295765

just to add to netmans comments..
0
VIDEO: THE CONCERTO CLOUD FOR HEALTHCARE

Modern healthcare requires a modern cloud. View this brief video to understand how the Concerto Cloud for Healthcare can help your organization.

 
Giuseppe "Pino" De FrancescoSenior Solution ArchitectCommented:
Hiya,

as I understand your whole WAN is in one domain, all connected (I suppose) by leased lines. I'll advice what I'll do in your shoes do do a good job without child domains (that would be better for the 30 people site) keeping a low profile but improving reliability and performances.

Main site:
2 Windows 2003 Server, each as
        Active Directory, DNS, (WINS if you have any W2K machine around) (AD as native 2003)
1 Windows 2003 Server as
         File Server, SQL, FTP, Webserver, Sharepoint
Your Windows 2000 Server as
         Exchange 2003, SPAM filter

In each office
1 Windows 2003 Server as
       Active Directory, DNS, (WINS if you have any W2K machine around) (AD as native 2003)

To better improve performances is possible to do more, but all is depending on the budget you have. I do not go here into the servers' roles, but if you are interested in this kind of structure, i'll do.

Hope this helps
Cheers
Pino
0
 
Netman66Commented:
You scrapped the SBS - I just caught that now.  So no need to worry about that.

Your solution is fine, provided you factor in that you cannot use any of the SBS components such as Exchange or SQL - you will have to buy full, standalone versions.  Since you have no choice in this, I suspect you knew that anyway.

It would be nicer to see 2003 as the AD root, but it should function fine as you envision it - as long as Exchange has full-time access to the GC (which needs to be a 2003 GC for a full feature set) then it will work.  If connectivity isn't 100% between sites the Exchange will fail in the absence of the GC.  This last point may require you to run purely 2003 servers for AD on both sides.



0
 
juanferminCommented:
Another thing to keep in mind with Exchange is that the standard version has a limit of only 16GB TOTAL DB size for ALL mailboxes, I recently had to upgrade an Exchange Server to Enterprise for a Law Firm because 10 users alone, out of 125 users, were exceeding the 16GB limit and it was causing ALL SORTS of problems for them, to where most of them were using Hotmail!!
0
 
Netman66Commented:
Service Pack 2 for Exchange increases the limit to 75GB with a registry tweak.

0
 
juanferminCommented:
Really, what's the Registry tweak?
0
 
juanferminCommented:
NNNNIIIIIIIIIiiicccccccccccccceeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This will delay one of my clients upgrading for at least a couple of years.
0
 
blaze2342Author Commented:
Well from what I've been told and what I gather from you guys.. the Small Business server isn't going to be any good.  I do have a 2000 server license I can work with and still need to pick up a sql license.  I guess using the sbs server for its sql capabilities would be out of the question.  
I'll look through the rest of these posts before I do anything.  As of right now I am leaning towards:

Windows 2003 Server
DNS, Active Directory, File Server, SQL, FTP

Windows 2000 Server
Exchange 2003, DNS, SPAM filter, Webserver, Sharepoint
0
 
Jay_Jay70Commented:
as i mentioned above, personally i think thats the best way to go for sure, especially if SBS is gone... netmans registry tweak should give you even more functionality and you should end up with a pretty stable network infrastructure
0
 
juanferminCommented:
Well, if you buy the upgrade license for SBS, you can break out the Exchange from it and the SQL Server from it too.  It doesn't make sense if you don't need both, but if you do, it does make sense to get it.
0

Featured Post

Free Tool: ZipGrep

ZipGrep is a utility that can list and search zip (.war, .ear, .jar, etc) archives for text patterns, without the need to extract the archive's contents.

One of a set of tools we're offering as a way to say thank you for being a part of the community.

  • 4
  • 4
  • 3
  • +2
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now