Deploying new Windows server
I need some suggestions regarding deploying a new server.
We're a medium sized company that's not an IT oriented.....now this makes the managers think that you don't need quicker and faster hardware and ONE server is sufficient to run everything.Well, the time has come where we have to implement a new server to take the load of the current(Windows SBS 2011) one.
The three main culprits that takes up most of the RAM and processing speed is the following order:
1)Mic Exchange 2010 (majority)
2)SQL server 2008
3) Web apps and apps.
I'm looking at getting Win 2012 srv.Obviously there is a budget to adhere to.I'm thinking of converting the next srv into the db server because we don't need to buy CAL's for all the db users.We have one SQL license that covers all our Windows srv users on current srv but if i had to move all the Win srv users over from the SBS srv side i have to pay for +- 50 client CAL's because you can't migrate the SBS 2011 CAL's to the WIN SRV 2012.
The current srv will stay the main DC and the new srv the secondary.
I have not done a setup like this before where i have to do a migration from SQL srv and setup a WIN srv from scratch.
Any advise?
We're a medium sized company that's not an IT oriented.....now this makes the managers think that you don't need quicker and faster hardware and ONE server is sufficient to run everything.Well, the time has come where we have to implement a new server to take the load of the current(Windows SBS 2011) one.
The three main culprits that takes up most of the RAM and processing speed is the following order:
1)Mic Exchange 2010 (majority)
2)SQL server 2008
3) Web apps and apps.
I'm looking at getting Win 2012 srv.Obviously there is a budget to adhere to.I'm thinking of converting the next srv into the db server because we don't need to buy CAL's for all the db users.We have one SQL license that covers all our Windows srv users on current srv but if i had to move all the Win srv users over from the SBS srv side i have to pay for +- 50 client CAL's because you can't migrate the SBS 2011 CAL's to the WIN SRV 2012.
The current srv will stay the main DC and the new srv the secondary.
I have not done a setup like this before where i have to do a migration from SQL srv and setup a WIN srv from scratch.
Any advise?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Thx for all the feedback!
To the 1st two answers:-I clearly understand that's how a server environment should be set up but this is not viable to us and it does frustate the hell out of me!The fact is that that we'll be getting one server sooner than later and the soonest we'll be buying another srv is in another year to be optimistic.I had to already twist management's arm to acquire the new srv because the current srv freezes now and then and some load has to be taken of it.
So this means i HAVE to make due with two srv's for now.This means migrating all the db's + db software over to the new server leaving Exchange and the rest intact on the "old" srv.
Obviously Exchange takes the most RAM of the current srv but as i mentioned before there's the CAL issue involved moving over to WIN srv 2012.
So does everybody agree that converting the new srv into a db server is a good idea?
To the 1st two answers:-I clearly understand that's how a server environment should be set up but this is not viable to us and it does frustate the hell out of me!The fact is that that we'll be getting one server sooner than later and the soonest we'll be buying another srv is in another year to be optimistic.I had to already twist management's arm to acquire the new srv because the current srv freezes now and then and some load has to be taken of it.
So this means i HAVE to make due with two srv's for now.This means migrating all the db's + db software over to the new server leaving Exchange and the rest intact on the "old" srv.
Obviously Exchange takes the most RAM of the current srv but as i mentioned before there's the CAL issue involved moving over to WIN srv 2012.
So does everybody agree that converting the new srv into a db server is a good idea?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
So I take it you don't agree with my comments that a professional can save you money and you don't have to do what you want to do?
ASKER
To jhyiesla:
We have looked into google apps before and would not benefit us.Maybe one day when we start going regional and then international which could happen within the next 5 - 10 years.
MS Exchange is using 19 GB out of our 32GB RAM +- 50 % of time(in a 24hr day).Even if i try and manually set parameters in the registry on the Exchange side memory does not go down and as iv e read Microsoft doesn't want users interfering with these values anyway.
While there's a high mem usage on the exchange side there's a lot of I\O , CPU usage + RAM usage on the SQL server side and that's why i'm considering going db server.
You agree?
To leew:
I do have a middleman \ supplier that help me with for instance setting up our most current server that will probably help setting up prospective server.But they themselves outsource guys to help them with different server setups.
I would have liked to take on this challenge myself but its too risky especially if something had to go wrong....
We have looked into google apps before and would not benefit us.Maybe one day when we start going regional and then international which could happen within the next 5 - 10 years.
MS Exchange is using 19 GB out of our 32GB RAM +- 50 % of time(in a 24hr day).Even if i try and manually set parameters in the registry on the Exchange side memory does not go down and as iv e read Microsoft doesn't want users interfering with these values anyway.
While there's a high mem usage on the exchange side there's a lot of I\O , CPU usage + RAM usage on the SQL server side and that's why i'm considering going db server.
You agree?
To leew:
I do have a middleman \ supplier that help me with for instance setting up our most current server that will probably help setting up prospective server.But they themselves outsource guys to help them with different server setups.
I would have liked to take on this challenge myself but its too risky especially if something had to go wrong....
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
What you're doing doesn't make sense to. You CANNOT remove Exchange from SBS. It's a license violation and the server will start shutting down on you. You CANNOT remove the Domain Controller functionality from SBS. Same issue. The ONLY thing you can move is SQL. I also don't understand why you're not (apparently) virtualizing.
I work for small and medium size businesses exclusively these days after working for a rather large one for a decade. Not sure why you doubt my advice and are (apparently) unwilling to discuss this with your supervisors but since you're not interested in my input any longer I'll stop participating. Best of luck.
I work for small and medium size businesses exclusively these days after working for a rather large one for a decade. Not sure why you doubt my advice and are (apparently) unwilling to discuss this with your supervisors but since you're not interested in my input any longer I'll stop participating. Best of luck.
ASKER
Amerilabkfichtner:
I'm also almost sure that you pay a license per cpu,i'll do investigation.
Looks like the majority agrees that setting up the new server as a db server would be most beneficial in our case.
Leew:
I agree with everything you said but you are not putting yourself in my shoes.We're a medium sized foods supply factory that don't focus on the IT side of things although the mind set here is slowly changing though.So Yes, i would love to have virtual machines but i can't get past my supervisors(and yes,i have discussed it with my supervisors,...a while back) and i myself worked for a bigger company than i'm working for now.....
Well, i wanted to "accept multiple solutions" but you don't seem to want to participate anymore.
I'm also almost sure that you pay a license per cpu,i'll do investigation.
Looks like the majority agrees that setting up the new server as a db server would be most beneficial in our case.
Leew:
I agree with everything you said but you are not putting yourself in my shoes.We're a medium sized foods supply factory that don't focus on the IT side of things although the mind set here is slowly changing though.So Yes, i would love to have virtual machines but i can't get past my supervisors(and yes,i have discussed it with my supervisors,...a while back) and i myself worked for a bigger company than i'm working for now.....
Well, i wanted to "accept multiple solutions" but you don't seem to want to participate anymore.
> (and yes,i have discussed it with my supervisors,...a while back)
How long is a while? Did you tell your supervisors that Server 2012 grants you TWO licenses for server - when run Virtually?
I do put myself in the shoes of others... But when information isn't provided I have to work with what I have. And when you don't acknowledge my points what should I do?
How long is a while? Did you tell your supervisors that Server 2012 grants you TWO licenses for server - when run Virtually?
I do put myself in the shoes of others... But when information isn't provided I have to work with what I have. And when you don't acknowledge my points what should I do?
First, you have SBS 2011. This HAS saved you money and may still be the most cost effective solution for you. It's not clear if you purchased the premium Add-on or not (that would have included SQL server and another server license so, at least OS wise, you wouldn't have had to put SQL and Exchange on the same system.
Second, buy a 2012 license and you get TWO server licenses when you run them virtually (and you should be running everything virtually - unless you have a VERY GOOD reason not to). You just cannot use Server 2012. 2012 at least when purchased through a volume license (which ALL your server OSs should be purchased) includes downgrade rights AND online access to media images (ISOs). So you buy a 2012 license and install 2008 R2. Your SBS 2011 CALs cover access to the other servers and you don't need any other CALs - or to buy Exchange separately.
One thing - Exchange and AD MUST be on the same SBS server - those roles CANNOT be separated. You could add another Exchange server if you wanted and make the one on the SBS minimally used, BUT, AD (and the other resources utilized besides Exchange on an SBS server are fairly minimal loads... Exchange is the big one. So the only thing I would move to another server is the SQL server.
Further, YES, BEST PRACTICE is to separate ALL functions on separate servers. A SEPARATE DNS server, a SEPARATE DHCP server, a SEPARATE Domain Controller, a SEPARATE Exchange server, etc. NOT because of load (in most cases) but instead for a separation of services so you can reboot one without affecting all the other services. BUT, in a small environment, the licensing, the hardware, the maintenance costs to do this is EXCESSIVE - you could easily bankrupt the company on IT expenses doing that. There are times where things can be combined and SHOULD be combined. Rebooting a domain controller for 10 (or even 50) users won't have the economically disruptive impact of rebooting the only domain controller for 1000 users. (not that 1000 users should only have one DC, they should have two, but hopefully you see the point).
You/your company has a choice - they can be cheap about IT and ask questions here (a GOOD SUPPLEMENTAL RESOURCE) and hope that the one mind in charge of the server at the company is good enough... or they can hire a pro who deals with this stuff every day. Sure, they may charge $100-150 per hour... but if they can use that hour to save you $750... isn't it worth it?