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?