Advice on Servers and Software to Purchase
We need to run SQL Server Standard Edition with a 10 GB database that 150 users are constantly accessing using Microsoft Access applications with linked SQL Server tables. We also need to run Microsoft Exchange, not as an Email Server (we're going to continue to use our outside source) but for email storage for about 60 users. We need to implement active directory and have a DHCP server running.
Which solution is best overall, considering cost, performance, simplicity, reliability, and disaster recovery? <Note: I'm trying not to incurr the expense of a SAN>
1.) Deploy a sever that runs all of this. Image the server and restore the image to a second off-line server that could take the place of the Active Server if the Active Server failed.
What specs would the server need to perform well enough? Would the Backup Server need to have the same hardware and resources?
2.) Have two servers ...
Server 1: Active directory, Exchange and DHCP. <A dormant version of SQL Server installed for Disaster Recovery (DR) >
Server 2: SQL Server (most critical application that needs to perform well, so put it on its own Server) < A dormant installation of Exchange for DR >
Every hour copy SQL Server data to Server 1 and Exchange data to Server 2 for DR. If one server goes down, the other can run everything until the broken server is fixed.
What issues are there with installing dormant versions of SQL Server and Exchange? How quickly can one server take over the other server's functions?
3.) The same as (2), but a virtual server running SQL Server on Server 1 with SQL Server's data on Server 1 and a virtual server running everything else running on Server 2 with Exchange data on Server 2.
Can a virtual server running on a physical box access data on the same physical box (i.e. data that isn't part of the virtual server)? If so, is there any reason that we shouldn't do this?
Which solution is best overall, considering cost, performance, simplicity, reliability, and disaster recovery? <Note: I'm trying not to incurr the expense of a SAN>
1.) Deploy a sever that runs all of this. Image the server and restore the image to a second off-line server that could take the place of the Active Server if the Active Server failed.
What specs would the server need to perform well enough? Would the Backup Server need to have the same hardware and resources?
2.) Have two servers ...
Server 1: Active directory, Exchange and DHCP. <A dormant version of SQL Server installed for Disaster Recovery (DR) >
Server 2: SQL Server (most critical application that needs to perform well, so put it on its own Server) < A dormant installation of Exchange for DR >
Every hour copy SQL Server data to Server 1 and Exchange data to Server 2 for DR. If one server goes down, the other can run everything until the broken server is fixed.
What issues are there with installing dormant versions of SQL Server and Exchange? How quickly can one server take over the other server's functions?
3.) The same as (2), but a virtual server running SQL Server on Server 1 with SQL Server's data on Server 1 and a virtual server running everything else running on Server 2 with Exchange data on Server 2.
Can a virtual server running on a physical box access data on the same physical box (i.e. data that isn't part of the virtual server)? If so, is there any reason that we shouldn't do this?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Thanks for the replies. I'll be back to work on Monday to explore these options further. Would database mirroring slow down performance? As for email storage, we are planning to use exchange to store everyone's emails into one secured, backed up file instead of everyone downloading their emails to the .pst files on each of their computers and having to backup each person's individual pst.
ASKER
I read up on database mirroring and also Exchange replication and am leaning more towards this option than virtualization. What do you think about this.
Server 1: SQL primary DB server
Server 2: Active directory, Exchange and DHCP primary scope.
Server 3: Active directory, DHCP secondary scope, SQL secondary mirrored DB server, Exchange secondary standby server
Note: SQL Server is on Server 1 by itself because it's most critical for performance, and Server 3 is strictly for Redundancy.
Do you know if we would have to purchase a full second copy of SQL Server and a full second copy of Exchange for redundancy?
Server 1: SQL primary DB server
Server 2: Active directory, Exchange and DHCP primary scope.
Server 3: Active directory, DHCP secondary scope, SQL secondary mirrored DB server, Exchange secondary standby server
Note: SQL Server is on Server 1 by itself because it's most critical for performance, and Server 3 is strictly for Redundancy.
Do you know if we would have to purchase a full second copy of SQL Server and a full second copy of Exchange for redundancy?
ASKER
Thanks for the information. You gave me topics to lookup and learn more about (cname, SQL Server mirroring, etc.). We decided on a two server solution ...
Server 1: SQL Server, Exchange (for storage only), AD DC, Print Server, DHCP primary scope
Server 2: Mirrored SQL Server, Replicated Exchange, AD DC, Backup Print Server, DHCP secondary scope
We'll be ordering the servers with plenty of resources to handle all of this (24 GB RAM, Xeon E5640 2.66 GHZ processor). We still have to decide on the hard drives and RAID configuration.
Server 1: SQL Server, Exchange (for storage only), AD DC, Print Server, DHCP primary scope
Server 2: Mirrored SQL Server, Replicated Exchange, AD DC, Backup Print Server, DHCP secondary scope
We'll be ordering the servers with plenty of resources to handle all of this (24 GB RAM, Xeon E5640 2.66 GHZ processor). We still have to decide on the hard drives and RAID configuration.
Veeam Backup and Replication v6
http://www.veeam.com/vmware-esx-backup.html