SBS2003 vs Win2k3 Server 4

[Murugs]

Guys
Planning to add a new server to ease some load on the current server.
My current setup here is win2000 server which acts as a domain controller/active directory and 24 clients .

Processes running in this server.

-Domain Controller
-We run a ERP application of the server where the clients connect.
-Runs a DHCP server
-File server

I am planning to add a new server and features in this new server
-Move ERP application from old server
-Move File server from old server
-Main Domain Controller

Still the old server would be acting as a
-DHCP server
-Kind of a backup server for the ERP application if the other fails I still can use this server untill I fix the other one
- and install new ISA 2000/Proxy server so that I can restrict and monitor internet activity.

I am not sure the above activity split up between 2 servers is smart. Please give your suggestions.

I was planning to add a windows 2003 enterprise server with 25 CAL's untill yesterday. Today I got confused after attending a windows 2003 server seminar where I got to know about the Windows SBS 2003 server which offers more as a single package. I will not be using Exchange (as we use external hosting for email) or sql. With SBS 2003 can I have 2 domain controllers. Little bit confused. Could some one explain the dfference and how easy it is to setup and provide recommendations.

What I cannot do with SBS 2003 server.

Also are DELL Poweredge servers good?

regards
MP

 

[markdmac]

Yes, you can use SBS and have additional domain controllers. What you can not do is add an SBS server to your current domain. SBS requires that it be the first DC. So you would need to start from scratch then move your existing DC into the new domain.

SBS has a lot to offer, especially with regard to the price. You might even want to reconsider using Exchange since you would get it as part of the SBS package. You could keep your current POP mail and use the SBS pop mail connector to download it. This will give you more efficiency as internal mail would just be routed internally instead of having to go out on the net. You would also be able to then use the IMF (Intelligent Message Filter) to help weed out SPAM. If you don't already own ISA, then go with the Premium version as it will save you a ton on the licensing.

I hope you find this post helpful. Please let me know if it was.

Regards,

Mark

 

[Marcs41]

Mark is correct, but I would add that if you are not going to use any of the other packages in SBS, then you are better of with a plain Windows 2003 Server.

About Dell hardware, opinions are relative. They are good, but I would not buy them, so not much help there ...

Marc
_{If 'something' 'somewhere' gives 'some' error, expect random guesses or no replies at all. Please specify details.
Free Tip: The F1 Key does NOT destroy your PC!
How Do You Get Great Answers To my Tek-Tips Questions?} See faq222-2244

 

[markdmac]

With SBS you are going to have a severe price advantage even if you don't use Exchange. Server licensing alone is a drastic price differential. Plus with SBS you will gain Remote Workplace which is exclusive to SBS. Add to that free copies of Outlook 2003 for the clients. If the number of users we were talking about was above 50 I would agree with Marcs41, but for only 25 users I will have to respectfully disagree.

If you are buying new hardware, I think Dell's cost on SBS Standard is only $425. You will pay a more than that for Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition.

I hope you find this post helpful. Please let me know if it was.

Regards,

Mark

 

[Murugs]

Hello Mark
Thanks for the valuable tips. Definitely your post was helpful.

If I understand your post correctly, there cannot be 2 DC's in SBS 2003 environment. Also I don't want my existing w2k server to join this new SBS.

Is this true..there can only be one SBS 2003 in a network i.e I cannot add one more SBS 2003 in future.

regards
MP

 

[stunpals]

I think Mark was saying that the SBS server has to be the firs DC in the domain but you can still add other regular DC's to that SBS domain in the furture. eg Win2k or Win2003 Std.

 

[Murugs]

So should I power down my current win2k DC completely and install the new SBS 2003 server.

MP

 

[markdmac]

OK, let me try to be more clear.

First to answer your question, yes there can be ONLY ONE SBS server on a network. It doesn't matter if it is part of a different domain either. If you share the cable plant, one of the servers will freak out.

You CAN{/b] have more than one domain controller with SBS. The additional DCs would have to be Windows 2003 Server but not SBS.

When you redesign your network, if you are using SBS you would have to START with the SBS server. After that you can have other servers become DCs for that domain.

With SBS you CAN NOT use trusts between domains. (I don't want to confuse you but you can actually do this for about 2 weeks and then the server will freak out, so let's just plan on it not being an option) So, you would be unable to leave your existing domain intact and have your clients cleanly access resources on both domains.

My recommendation is to go with SBS for your 25 users. Use the SBS server for email, DNS, DHCP, user authentication and intranet. Use your existing server as a member server running your application. This would allow the least amount of rework on your existing server. You would first use ADMT to migrate user accounts over to the SBS domain from the old domain. Then you could run DCPROMO on the old server to make it a member of a workgroup. Then join it to the SBS domain. Your next decision then would be do your really need a second DC and if so run DCPROMO.

Having redundancy is a wonderful thing, but you should take a look at how that will tax your application server. SBS will not allow for there to be more than one DHCP server, so as far as redundancy goes, it would not be totally automated. You would not have a problem making the application server a DNS server if you made it a DC, but you couldn't set up a portion of your scope on the second DC and have it running. You could set it up so you would only have to start the DHCP Server service.

I hope you find this post helpful. Please let me know if it was.

Regards,

Mark

 

[Marcs41]

Mark explained that pretty well, and as you can read, SBS is great on its own, but no so 'friendly' in a bigger environment, hence the 'Small Business' name.
From reading everything above, I believe you will have less problems, less complexity and less restrictions using Windows 2003 Server in this case.

Marc
_{If 'something' 'somewhere' gives 'some' error, expect random guesses or no replies at all. Please specify details.
Free Tip: The F1 Key does NOT destroy your PC!
How Do You Get Great Answers To my Tek-Tips Questions?} See faq222-2244

 

[Murugs]

Hello Mark(c)
Those posts were crystal clear.
You have cleared lot of my confusion. I will evaluate the server options and come up with some decision and will let you know at a later stage.

regards
MP

 

[zviw]

Pardon my jumping in but I have been following this thread and have a question for Mark. (I am considering SBS 2003 for my network, so this is pertinent and not just idle curiosity.)

You said that you wouldn't go with SBS 2003 for 50 users:

>If the number of users we were talking about was above 50 I would agree with Marcs41, but for only 25 users I will have to respectfully disagree.<

I would like to know why. I thought it could handle up to 75 users.

Thanks and sorry for the interruption.

Zvi

 

[Marcs41]

Simply because of the (potential) expansion of your network, in which case SBS 'could' be a negative factor, as explained by Mark.
SBS can handle that pretty well, as long as you do not require a more complex network then just that 1 server.

Marc
_{If 'something' 'somewhere' gives 'some' error, expect random guesses or no replies at all. Please specify details.
Free Tip: The F1 Key does NOT destroy your PC!
How Do You Get Great Answers To my Tek-Tips Questions?} See faq222-2244

 

[zviw]

Thanks. I have some more homework to do.

Could you point me to some resources to help me evaluate whether I am better off with SBS or Windows Server?

Zvi

 

[zviw]

A star for each.

I don't know where you both get the time to help so much.

Thanks

 

[Marcs41]

http://www.microsoft.com

and

http://www.tek-tips.com

;-)

Marc
_{If 'something' 'somewhere' gives 'some' error, expect random guesses or no replies at all. Please specify details.
Free Tip: The F1 Key does NOT destroy your PC!
How Do You Get Great Answers To my Tek-Tips Questions?} See faq222-2244

 

[Marcs41]

Time is relative, so it is relatively easy.

 

[zviw]

Been to both. Received more practical info on tek-tips.

 

[markdmac]

One of the big considerations with SBS is understanding that 75 user limit. The "practical" limit is still 50 users. Microsoft added support for up to 75 users to make it easier for customers to grow and upgrade into the standard server. For best performance/usability, you should try to stick with the 50 user limit.

I hope you find this post helpful. Please let me know if it was.

Regards,

Mark

 

[zviw]

I, just now, searched on Google for SBS 2003 planning. First result is entitled "Planning for Windows Small Business Server 2003". This has a link to "IT Solutions for Small and Medium Businesses".

Microsoft has Word documents mapping out the network architecture for different size installations. The "Small IT Solution" is for up to 50 users and is centered on SBS 2003.

The "Medium IT Solution" (watermarked BETA) is for a network of 50 to 250 users and is centered on Windows Server 2003.

Thanks for all the help.

Zvi

 

[markdmac]

ZVIW, my boss helped write the Small IT doc. I wrote the specs for suggested scripts for that doc. I am now in the process of working on the GPO recommendations for Medium IT. Fun stuff and lots of good information there for you to work through.

I hope you find this post helpful. Please let me know if it was.

Regards,

Mark