Clustering Servers or Seperate Servers...which is better?

[Newmc]

We have one Microsoft Small Business server on our network that does it all. It is the domain controller, email server, file server, etc. etc. etc. We want to build in some redundancy, so we are considering clustering two servers that do it all just the way our one server is set up now.

Do you think that this is the best way to go, or would it be better to have seperate servers for email, files, domain controller etc?

I really value everyone's thoughts on this...Thanks

 

[victorv]

hi,

I suggest to leave this server as Domain Controller
and use another PC, fast but little ( a good desktop )
as BDC ( or 2^ DC in W2K env ).

Then deploy a cluster with 2 new servers and put on
it, critical (strategic) but easy services as File-server.

By this way, the impact of changes is minimum:

- the domain controller and domain name remain the old.

- you can choose a group of user, and copy their files
on a new share on cluster: then, only for them, map
their H disk ( an examples ) to the new share rather
the old on your old server.

- wait some weeks, and if all is OK, continue migration
of user files from old to new: I belive that many users
will not see anything.

- When you have experienced with file-server on cluster
try with other serveces to migrate them on cluster,
always begining with a test or if it is possible
( not for e-mail) with a group.

- Leave Domain controllers out of the cluster: they have
already their redoundancy method.

- If you buy disks and storage for file server, start with
2 big disk-array (raid5 of opportune dims), and buy
a storage tower that can permit you to buy 1 or 2 other
disk-array in the next 2-3 years, without buy other
storage-tower or servers. ( Holes today cost less than
a tower tomorrow )
Then dedicate server A to DiskGroup A and
server B to disk B: don't leave a server do nothing.

bye

bye