SharePoint 2010 Planning and Installation

Hi There,
I need a high level installation steps of SharePoint Server 2010 and SQL server 2008, for following scenario.

-I'm going to install SharePoint server 2010 for a company of about 20 users.
We have one brand new server, also We have one existing Windows Server 2008 server that is the only server of the company, for Sharing, Active directory, Application server, Backup server and so on.  

My goal is to install the SharePoint Server 2010 in the new server also move all the applications to this new server and use the old server just for Sharing and Backup.

So I like to have following on the new server:
1. SharePoint Server 2010
2. A few web base applications, all IIS base that have SQL server in back (Very light use).
3. Domain controler (Since the company has just one server I like this server be a part of Active directory domain to have a redundancy).

My main concern is:
1. How to co-esist SQL server for SharePoint with SQL srever for applications?
 - Witch SQL should be the default and with Witch one the Name server?
2. Is it OK the server be a part of Domain and keep the active directory?

Thank you in advance

Who is Participating?

[Product update] Infrastructure Analysis Tool is now available with Business Accounts.Learn More

I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

It really sounds like you should consider installing SBS 2011 on your new server, but to answer your questions:

1. Neither instance of SQL has to be the default, they can both be named instances, or either can be the default.  It doesn't really matter.  If they use the same version of SQL, you could even share the same instance.

2. Yes, the server can be a DC.  (In your situation, I'd probably add the new one as a DC, migrate the FSMO roles and then leave the old server as a secondary DC.)

The more stuff you pile on the server, the sloppier the operating system environment gets, but if you aren't a separation nazi (like I am,) then you can shove as much stuff onto the box as it will handle.

If you prefer to separate it, then buy Server 2008 R2 Enterprise and use Hyper-V on your host.  Then you can create four virtual guests and split out some of those roles you have.  I'd go so far as to get SBS 2011 and virtualize it on there as well.  (This is assuming your hardware is sufficient to the task.)

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
Justin SmithSr. System EngineerCommented:
A few thoughts from my experiences......

-Never a good idea to put SharePoint or SQL on a Domain Controller
-Have you considered SharePoint Foundation rather than full blown SharePoint Server?  Foundation is free (but lacks certain functionality).
-SharePoint and SQL can exist on the same box, and if you only have 20 users, it shouldn't be a performance issue as long as you have at least 6-8 GB of RAM.
-SQL Server 2008 R2 Express is free, so I would go with that unless you have a license already for full version of R2.  SQL Server 2008 will work too.

If you're sure the environment will be used only by 20 users, it's ok to put everything on a single W2008 R2 server. 8GB Ram is recommended, but please limit the SQL memory utilization, otherwise it will suck all of it and not that much will be available for the rest.

Put Sharepoint inside an Active Directory but not as controller. Within AD it's working much better and everything will be easier managed, like automatically changing password and so on. But since Sharepoint could need some tuning and rebooting, it's not a very good idea to use it as a Domain Controller at all. Perhaps you can install Hyper-V on a small Windows 7 machine, create a VM and install the DC there.

Hope it helps.
Protecting & Securing Your Critical Data

Considering 93 percent of companies file for bankruptcy within 12 months of a disaster that blocked access to their data for 10 days or more, planning for the worst is just smart business. Learn how Acronis Backup integrates security at every stage

exsasanAuthor Commented:
Thanks everybody for feedback,
I think I would setup new server as:
1. Windows server 2008 as member (Not DC),
2. Install SQL server 2008 R2 for all internal web applications.
3. Install SharePoint Server using either the same SQL Server or on a separate one.  (Not sure about this part) .
Later if the company have more employee I can transfer the internal applications + related DB to a new server and keep this server just for share-point.
Also the server has 2 NIC cards, is there a way to take advantage of that, by activating both NIC card and use one somehow just for SharePoint?

Any suggestion about using second NIC, or the whole scenario??

Justin SmithSr. System EngineerCommented:
you could dedicate one Nic to SharePoint web traffic only. Meaning register the server in DNS on one Nic up, and register your SharePoint URLs in DNS as the other Nic up.
Depending on the server architecture you could setup both NIC in teaming, so taking advantage of an higher speed. Usually this could help when many docs are retrieved/viewed on the same time. At least this is the configuration I have on HP servers.

You should analyze first the scope of the whole project (how many apps, webpages...).

Regarding the installation, it's always recommended to put SQL on an other server if you can: it will improve the reliability of the infrastructure, and you will have the opportunity to configure the backup of SQL separately from the Sharepoint one.

Jeffrey Kane - TechSoEasyPrincipal ConsultantCommented:
Have you considered using Office365 for this?  For only 20 users this seems like a huge amount of overhead and maintenance, without the ability to do much if there are scalability or resource problems.

I would definitely consider Office365 as a viable option before moving forward.

exsasanAuthor Commented:
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Microsoft SharePoint

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.