Exchange 2007, Distributed file system vs. Terminal Services - multiple sites
All servers in this scenario are or will be running MS Server 2003 or MS Server 2008 and, when applicable, Exchange 2007.
I currently have 3 sites in our WAN - Admin (13 PCs), Site2 (10 PCs) and Site3 (10 PCs). I also have a couple of laptops that move around within the organization. I have about 50 users in AD. I currently have 1 Exchange Server that is also a Domain Controller (I know MS doesn't recommend this) and soon-to-be also a file & print server.
Site2 & Site3 have very slow response for Outlook & shared file access. I have 2 main goals: 1 - Increase speed at Sites1 & 2; and 2 - Have data replicated at the three sites so we have near-zero down time in the event of a catastrophe at Admin. I have conflicting recommendations from contractors.
My thinking is to build 2 new servers, each with Exchange and have 3 Exchange servers - one at each of the 3 sites. These same servers would host AD & DFS to keep a copy of all shared files at all 3 locations. Users would then authenticate, receive e-mail and access shared files on their respective LANs. The WAN would be utilized to replicate e-mail and shared files - and to access the Internet.
One contractor thinks the above scenario is OK, but has doubts that I am protected in case of catastrophe. If all 3 servers have replicas of all the relevant data, where am I unprotected? I understand the e-mail delivery point would have to be changed.
Contractor two thinks the above scenario will bring the WAN connection at Admin to a crawl and cause Admin personnel large delays in their Internet access. (I currently have 384k upload speed, but can increase this to 768k. Download is currently 3M, but I can increase to 6M.) This contractor suggests converting to terminal services, having all users access the term server at Admin for everything. I think this is riskier due to the single point of contact. We have volume licenses for XP & Office 2007 and can purchase the term server CAL's for $6 each, so we could convert to term servers if that's the best option. Would I place mirrored servers at Admin for data protection? Would I want/need domain controllers at the branches (we have none now)? Would my first scenario really make the WAN at Admin crawl?
Regarding e-mail, is there a better solution than on-site Exchange servers, assuming Exchange is the software, and full Oulook functionality is desired (i.e. not OWA)?
Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
I currently have 3 sites in our WAN - Admin (13 PCs), Site2 (10 PCs) and Site3 (10 PCs). I also have a couple of laptops that move around within the organization. I have about 50 users in AD. I currently have 1 Exchange Server that is also a Domain Controller (I know MS doesn't recommend this) and soon-to-be also a file & print server.
Site2 & Site3 have very slow response for Outlook & shared file access. I have 2 main goals: 1 - Increase speed at Sites1 & 2; and 2 - Have data replicated at the three sites so we have near-zero down time in the event of a catastrophe at Admin. I have conflicting recommendations from contractors.
My thinking is to build 2 new servers, each with Exchange and have 3 Exchange servers - one at each of the 3 sites. These same servers would host AD & DFS to keep a copy of all shared files at all 3 locations. Users would then authenticate, receive e-mail and access shared files on their respective LANs. The WAN would be utilized to replicate e-mail and shared files - and to access the Internet.
One contractor thinks the above scenario is OK, but has doubts that I am protected in case of catastrophe. If all 3 servers have replicas of all the relevant data, where am I unprotected? I understand the e-mail delivery point would have to be changed.
Contractor two thinks the above scenario will bring the WAN connection at Admin to a crawl and cause Admin personnel large delays in their Internet access. (I currently have 384k upload speed, but can increase this to 768k. Download is currently 3M, but I can increase to 6M.) This contractor suggests converting to terminal services, having all users access the term server at Admin for everything. I think this is riskier due to the single point of contact. We have volume licenses for XP & Office 2007 and can purchase the term server CAL's for $6 each, so we could convert to term servers if that's the best option. Would I place mirrored servers at Admin for data protection? Would I want/need domain controllers at the branches (we have none now)? Would my first scenario really make the WAN at Admin crawl?
Regarding e-mail, is there a better solution than on-site Exchange servers, assuming Exchange is the software, and full Oulook functionality is desired (i.e. not OWA)?
Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Based on the above and additional consultations, we are going with a Citrix-based solution.
ASKER