I am in the proposal stages of designing a small network. I have proposed two servers...One SBS 2003 STD server and one 2008 server. I had intended to have the second server there idle as a disaster to maintina the AD informatino in the event of a failure of server one. I got the following reply from the clients advisor. Can you counter this? I obviously want to sell two servers, but if I am wrong, then I am wrong.
In this environment I see no advantage gained by the backup server. While this server would keep the "network" running, there would be no data to access, because it would all reside on the primary server. Therefore to the end user, this server would do nothing. Current windows clients will cache the domain sign on data, so unlike in the past, you would still have full access to your local P.C. While there are ways to make the secondary server a true fall-back for the primary server, this would require both servers to have IDENTICAL hardware configurations, and use a different version of windows server (Windows Server 2008 enterprise). This would be substantially more expensive and I am not sure that level of redundancy is justified in this environment.