Hello, I have a client with the current configuration, they have 20 PCs:
Server A: SBS 2003 running as Domain, Exchange, Quikbooks (3 users), LOB application and File + Print.
Server A specs: About 10 years old: hardware) Intel Pentium 4 2800, 1.5 gig ram, raid 1 250 gig hard drives (Western Digital Blue Cavalier 7.2k RPM)
Server B: Server 2008 Foundation running as File Server.
About 5 years old: hardware) AMD Opteron 1214 Dual Core 2200mhz, 8 Gig Ram, Raid 5 with 6 250 Gig hard drives.
As you can see, Server A is over tasked and underpowered (runs very slowly). I'm going to suggest to the client that they replace Server A with a new server. This new server will run their Database program only, so it will run Server 2008 STD.
Since Server B is underutilized, I was going to suggest putting on SBS 2011, however looking at the requirements, the CPU of Server B doesn't meet the requirement.
I'd like for Server B be used as the DC, exchange, file + print and Quickbooks. So my question is, would you put SBS 2008 on it, knowing you'd probably get about 5-7 useful years out of it, plus know that MS would discontinue support sooner than 2011.
Or would you try to get client to replace Server B with one that can handle SBS 2011?
Obviously there could be a million different configurations of servers, but I'm trying to balance cost plus long term ROI.