Our current office is using a two server setup. Main server (file, exchange, sql) is SBS 2003 and is due for replacement. Secondary server is Server 2003 Standard and is used as a Terminal Server for one SQL based application. The actual database is on the main server. The secondary server is well beyond needing replacement.
My question is which scenario would be more ideal:
- Single server - upgraded hardware running SBS 2011 for file, exchange and SQL
- virtualized version of Server 2008 R2 Standard to take care of Terminal
- Dual server - upgraded hardware for main server running SBS 2011 for file, exchange
- new basic hardware for second server running Server 2008 R2 for
My thoughts are that the ideal would be two separate physical servers in order to avoid having a single point of failure. I'm not exactly familiar with using Hyper-V or Virtual Server to host Server 2008 R2. I'm sure it's possible, but we are looking to have the absolute most stable option available.
Your input on the ideal scenario is greatly appreciated.