Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Chriss Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Whats wrong with this picture? 5
- Thread starter group6
- Start date
-
1
- #2
1. Bad idea running an app or DB on a DC. Also, only a single DC? Not a good idea.
2. No biggie
3. What's the need for 2008 Enterprise and 2007 Enterprise? Someone overpaid for licenses, IMHO.
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
2. No biggie
3. What's the need for 2008 Enterprise and 2007 Enterprise? Someone overpaid for licenses, IMHO.
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
-
1
- Thread starter
- #3
Thank you!!
Thats what I was looking for-only a single DC. This is the plan of the consultant thats been hired to do this NT4/Ex5.5 migration to a Windows Server 2003 domain. These are the only new servers in the picture. Im thinking 'so wheres the other DC gonna go?'
I posed the question the way I did so I wouldnt be putting words into anyone's mouth.
As to the Enterprise cals, theyre donated by MS (non-profit)but aside from that, wouldnt you say that Enterprise versions of Exchange 2007 and Server 2008 would be administratively more complex than necessary? Would SBS be a better idea?
When I look at the 'shopping list' I see Exchange Server, Exchange Server cals, "Windows Server" cals, TS cals, and (2)Windows Server 2008 line items. A Windows Server 2008 domain?? And the Access db has to go somewhere...
Thats what I was looking for-only a single DC. This is the plan of the consultant thats been hired to do this NT4/Ex5.5 migration to a Windows Server 2003 domain. These are the only new servers in the picture. Im thinking 'so wheres the other DC gonna go?'
I posed the question the way I did so I wouldnt be putting words into anyone's mouth.
As to the Enterprise cals, theyre donated by MS (non-profit)but aside from that, wouldnt you say that Enterprise versions of Exchange 2007 and Server 2008 would be administratively more complex than necessary? Would SBS be a better idea?
When I look at the 'shopping list' I see Exchange Server, Exchange Server cals, "Windows Server" cals, TS cals, and (2)Windows Server 2008 line items. A Windows Server 2008 domain?? And the Access db has to go somewhere...
-
2
- #4
hi,
DB is a big word for Access: they are just files,
the server has not a DB engine for it, it shares just
mdb files and lock ones (but is still a shared file).
I don't see great problems.
What you can do, is to install another DC to improve
reliability. I should not use the TS, to do this: you could use a DC as TS, but you have to manage policy to permit normal user to logon on a TS:
don't do it, if you want a cheap solution use a good PC,
or a simple 1u rack server with 2 mirrored hd, 4gbram.
How about shared disk space: enough ?
bye
vic
DB is a big word for Access: they are just files,
the server has not a DB engine for it, it shares just
mdb files and lock ones (but is still a shared file).
I don't see great problems.
What you can do, is to install another DC to improve
reliability. I should not use the TS, to do this: you could use a DC as TS, but you have to manage policy to permit normal user to logon on a TS:
don't do it, if you want a cheap solution use a good PC,
or a simple 1u rack server with 2 mirrored hd, 4gbram.
How about shared disk space: enough ?
bye
vic
Enterprise isn't going to be more complex to administer. It's just overkill based on the info you supplied.
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
-
1
- #6
Agree with Victory, unless you have hundreds of users, DB files or even SQL will run fine on a DC; Active Directory uses/requires minimal resources on small networks. You should have at least raid 1 running on all those servers, rebuilding critical servers is not a dance in the park even with a backup. With 150 users you need another separate DC, too much AD work if something goes wrong.. for the second DC, agree with Victory, an inexpensive/low end setup will do. On the added DC, you could run resident programs such as your AV software.
Watch out if you have an old DB which can be affected by SMB signing and opportunistic locking.
I would think about placing the Enterprise version on the original DC mentioned, standard version on the Exchange. Though both need the extra ram capacity, but it would likely benefit the DC more, since it will be your main file server.
........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial
Watch out if you have an old DB which can be affected by SMB signing and opportunistic locking.
I would think about placing the Enterprise version on the original DC mentioned, standard version on the Exchange. Though both need the extra ram capacity, but it would likely benefit the DC more, since it will be your main file server.
........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial
The problem with the Access files isn't one of performance, it's one of access. Generally, you don't want users with file level access on a DC.
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
I have no issues with permissions on DCs, correctly applied, users or groups only are able to access files or folders they have rights to. On my client's server I also use ABE, so they can not even see files/folder without specific permissions. Been working on networks since 1983, and yet to have a compromised server/network..though I have walked into more then a few.
Granted it requires more work, but most small businesses simply can not afford to have dedicated DCs.
........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial
Granted it requires more work, but most small businesses simply can not afford to have dedicated DCs.
........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial
hi,
I agree with you Pat, but it's a priority problem.
The next step for gruop6 will be a file server,
why not with MSCS ?
Meanwhile, group6 don't give access to DC by UNC
(\\yourserver\shares), but strictly use network drives,
so, when you can or must for space problem,
you can move easily files from a server to another
with minimum impact on users and procedures.
byr
vic
I agree with you Pat, but it's a priority problem.
The next step for gruop6 will be a file server,
why not with MSCS ?
Meanwhile, group6 don't give access to DC by UNC
(\\yourserver\shares), but strictly use network drives,
so, when you can or must for space problem,
you can move easily files from a server to another
with minimum impact on users and procedures.
byr
vic
DFS would be my choice for file servers. No clustering required, and it gets really cool when you have file servers in different branch offices.
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
- Thread starter
- #11
There is only 292GB of shared space on the file server, that mightve been a mistake.
The file server will have ( 2) 146GB RAID1 and (3) 146GB RAID5 disks. The TS will have (2) 146GB RAID1. Exchange (2) 146GB RAID1 and (4) 300GB RAID 10.
8GB RAM on Exchange, 4GB on file server and TS.
Would MSCS decrease storage space? For failover, performance or both?
DFS requires more space too, right?
I have a PowerEdge 2900 that has a Xeon dual core 5100 series and 2GB RAM that I could use as a second DC, would that suffice? I think 64 bit will run on it.
The file server will have ( 2) 146GB RAID1 and (3) 146GB RAID5 disks. The TS will have (2) 146GB RAID1. Exchange (2) 146GB RAID1 and (4) 300GB RAID 10.
8GB RAM on Exchange, 4GB on file server and TS.
Would MSCS decrease storage space? For failover, performance or both?
DFS requires more space too, right?
I have a PowerEdge 2900 that has a Xeon dual core 5100 series and 2GB RAM that I could use as a second DC, would that suffice? I think 64 bit will run on it.
MikeArcade
Technical User
Seriously, has no one suggested Virtualization?
If you are buying new hardware, then you can set up 2 servers with ESX 3i (free) and host a DC off each one, as well as member servers to host "whatever". Then have the third for exchange. If MS is supplying the CALs, then why not use them.
Michael
"I'm working on it!"
If you are buying new hardware, then you can set up 2 servers with ESX 3i (free) and host a DC off each one, as well as member servers to host "whatever". Then have the third for exchange. If MS is supplying the CALs, then why not use them.
Michael
"I'm working on it!"
The file server will have ( 2) 146GB RAID1 and (3) 146GB RAID5 disks."
Assuming the (2) 146Gb is for the system partition, this is much more space then needed for the OS and program files.
More efficient, get two (roughly) 73 Gig drives for the OS\programs, add the 146 GBs to the (3) drive raid 5. Not only do you get space, but for each drive added to a raid 5 (up to a point)your performance increases considerably, which will help offset the raid 5 write penalty.
"The TS will have (2) 146GB RAID1" This should be fine, depending on how many users login in total (as to user profile space needed). Generally with TS servers I have users with small local profiles, avoiding roaming profiles as to space and management headaches.
"I have a PowerEdge 2900 that has a Xeon dual core 5100 series and 2GB RAM that I could use as a second DC, would that suffice? I think 64 bit will run on it."
For the TS server, I would use the least horse-powered machine, ram is the most important factor on a TS, unless there will be many concurrent users. A PE 2900 with definitely run 64 bit, have a number running 64 Win 2008. Have a client who ran a PE 4600 TS (few concurrent users) which ran programs twice as fast as wks machines with almost triple CPU speed.
"Exchange (2) 146GB RAID1 and (4) 300GB RAID 10."
Again, for an Exchange server, 146 GB is way too much space.
Lastly I would purchase at least 1 spare 146GB and if you go down to 73s for the OS, one spare for that group.
No loss even if you have a 4 hour support contract, >3 years down the line drives become difficult to obtain, and expensive.
........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial
Assuming the (2) 146Gb is for the system partition, this is much more space then needed for the OS and program files.
More efficient, get two (roughly) 73 Gig drives for the OS\programs, add the 146 GBs to the (3) drive raid 5. Not only do you get space, but for each drive added to a raid 5 (up to a point)your performance increases considerably, which will help offset the raid 5 write penalty.
"The TS will have (2) 146GB RAID1" This should be fine, depending on how many users login in total (as to user profile space needed). Generally with TS servers I have users with small local profiles, avoiding roaming profiles as to space and management headaches.
"I have a PowerEdge 2900 that has a Xeon dual core 5100 series and 2GB RAM that I could use as a second DC, would that suffice? I think 64 bit will run on it."
For the TS server, I would use the least horse-powered machine, ram is the most important factor on a TS, unless there will be many concurrent users. A PE 2900 with definitely run 64 bit, have a number running 64 Win 2008. Have a client who ran a PE 4600 TS (few concurrent users) which ran programs twice as fast as wks machines with almost triple CPU speed.
"Exchange (2) 146GB RAID1 and (4) 300GB RAID 10."
Again, for an Exchange server, 146 GB is way too much space.
Lastly I would purchase at least 1 spare 146GB and if you go down to 73s for the OS, one spare for that group.
No loss even if you have a 4 hour support contract, >3 years down the line drives become difficult to obtain, and expensive.
........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial
Granted, the drive configuration is far less than optimal. But message tracking logs and other data could be stored on a partition on those drives.
A better solution would be two smaller drives for the OS, 2x146 in RAID 1 for the transaction logs, 2x72GB in RAID 1 for tracking logs and binaries, and 8x146GB in RAID 10 for the databases. Much faster, much safer, and much more efficient.
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
Still maintain 146Gb drives are way to big, even with message tracking logs, other data would best be keep off a system partition for ease of management.
"8x146GB in RAID 10 for the databases"
With unlimited resources this would be great, as would a totally separate spindle set for the logs. The minute I see "non profit" in a post, I assume there is a budget.
........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial
"8x146GB in RAID 10 for the databases"
With unlimited resources this would be great, as would a totally separate spindle set for the logs. The minute I see "non profit" in a post, I assume there is a budget.
........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial
There's a budget in any company - for profit or non profit. I installed an Exchange 2007 solution in a 300 user non-profit environment. 5 servers (2 for CCR, 2 for CAS/HT, 1 for edge). Budget was a factor, but we implemented the right solution. Even the Edge box had 6 drives: 2x72 for OS/paging, 2x146 for tracking logs, 2x146 for binaries and other logs. CAS/HT and mailbox have more, obviously.
Keep in mind that we also have to think about paging file as well. So - you've got 50GB for tracking logs, space for paging, space for OS and related apps. 146GB isn't out of the question.
The recommendation for the environment should be based on best practices and known performance guidelines.
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
Keep in mind that we also have to think about paging file as well. So - you've got 50GB for tracking logs, space for paging, space for OS and related apps. 146GB isn't out of the question.
The recommendation for the environment should be based on best practices and known performance guidelines.
Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.
Back at the top of this thread Group6 asked if SBS would be a good option. Group6, how many users do you have?
SBS 2008 might be a good fit for you, it would give you some added features for remote access that you would not otherwise get unless you went with EBS.
I hope you find this post helpful.
Regards,
Mark
Check out my scripting solutions at
Work SMARTER not HARDER. The Spider's Parlor's Admin Script Pack is a collection of Administrative scripts designed to make IT Administration easier! Save time, get more work done, get the Admin Script Pack.
SBS 2008 might be a good fit for you, it would give you some added features for remote access that you would not otherwise get unless you went with EBS.
I hope you find this post helpful.
Regards,
Mark
Check out my scripting solutions at
Work SMARTER not HARDER. The Spider's Parlor's Admin Script Pack is a collection of Administrative scripts designed to make IT Administration easier! Save time, get more work done, get the Admin Script Pack.
- Thread starter
- #18
I purchased the servers already so I have to work with what I have. Choices I made were driven by end of quarter discounts from Dell. All the drives are 15k SAS. The 146GB drives were about the same cost as the 73GB. Today, the 146 is cheaper than the 73. So I could get a few more and add them I guess.
On the present TS with 73GB drives, there are are about 50 profiles and only 3.5GB space left.
The 2900 has (2) 115GB SAS RAID1.
Disk space for Exchange: using the examples in the "Storage Strategies for a New Exchange" article, my numbers would be 25% greater (125 mailboxes) -presently, average mailbox is 100MB-some 2.5MB all the way up to 900MB (thats mine). 250MB mailboxes is a good jump over present so I would think thats considerable wiggle room. That would come to 140GB + <2GB of log files. Again thats way on the high side.
I was thinking OS, Exchange and logs on the 146s, mailboxes on the 300s.
SBS 2008? <150 users
On the present TS with 73GB drives, there are are about 50 profiles and only 3.5GB space left.
The 2900 has (2) 115GB SAS RAID1.
Disk space for Exchange: using the examples in the "Storage Strategies for a New Exchange" article, my numbers would be 25% greater (125 mailboxes) -presently, average mailbox is 100MB-some 2.5MB all the way up to 900MB (thats mine). 250MB mailboxes is a good jump over present so I would think thats considerable wiggle room. That would come to 140GB + <2GB of log files. Again thats way on the high side.
I was thinking OS, Exchange and logs on the 146s, mailboxes on the 300s.
SBS 2008? <150 users
SBS has a limit of 75 users so that is not an option for you. I'd look at EBS.
Forum:
My Notes on EBS:
I hope you find this post helpful.
Regards,
Mark
Check out my scripting solutions at
Work SMARTER not HARDER. The Spider's Parlor's Admin Script Pack is a collection of Administrative scripts designed to make IT Administration easier! Save time, get more work done, get the Admin Script Pack.
Forum:
My Notes on EBS:
I hope you find this post helpful.
Regards,
Mark
Check out my scripting solutions at
Work SMARTER not HARDER. The Spider's Parlor's Admin Script Pack is a collection of Administrative scripts designed to make IT Administration easier! Save time, get more work done, get the Admin Script Pack.
SimonDavies
MIS
What you haven't mentioned in the migration process is how you're currently doing DNS\DHCP and WINS.
I am assuming that this is currently housed on a mix of NT4 servers? Would you not want to be using resiliance and having those services installed onto two DC's? (DHCP using either split scope or using a scheduled task to NetSH the DHCP scope details to the passive DHCP server)?
Going through the same thing with my non profit now I know what it's like.
As far as the Exchange server goes, we had to go down the route of using 10x146gb disks because they were the cheapest option available to us, we are a 350 seat operation. Having just configured an SCR because of lack of a reliable backup solution (not handled by my team btw) we made do with a blade server with 2x146 disks and just made the partitions large enough to cope with the data (a total of 17gb).
One other thing I don't see here is the mention of Exchange 2003, you can't jump straight to 2007 from 5.5 so you're going to have to have servers running your interim 2003 servers as well. You would also want to leave that running for a week or so (the Exchange 2003 environment doesn't create all of the required data for a period of about 24hours after the installation), you also need to make sure you have the 5.5 Exchange media because you're going to have to uninstall the 5.5 servers from the new 2003 Environment (not normally a problem but it can go wrong).
Its taken us months to go from the NT4\Ex5.5 environment to our current 2003 AD\Exchange 2007 environment, that's meant working a lot of weekends and late evenings testing. It's also lead to a lot of Application testing (you would be surprised at the amount of old apps still out there that don't understand AD), its cost us a fortune on hardware and licensing and it's still not complete.
Good luck mate
Simon
The real world is not about exam scores, it's about ability.
I am assuming that this is currently housed on a mix of NT4 servers? Would you not want to be using resiliance and having those services installed onto two DC's? (DHCP using either split scope or using a scheduled task to NetSH the DHCP scope details to the passive DHCP server)?
Going through the same thing with my non profit now I know what it's like.
As far as the Exchange server goes, we had to go down the route of using 10x146gb disks because they were the cheapest option available to us, we are a 350 seat operation. Having just configured an SCR because of lack of a reliable backup solution (not handled by my team btw) we made do with a blade server with 2x146 disks and just made the partitions large enough to cope with the data (a total of 17gb).
One other thing I don't see here is the mention of Exchange 2003, you can't jump straight to 2007 from 5.5 so you're going to have to have servers running your interim 2003 servers as well. You would also want to leave that running for a week or so (the Exchange 2003 environment doesn't create all of the required data for a period of about 24hours after the installation), you also need to make sure you have the 5.5 Exchange media because you're going to have to uninstall the 5.5 servers from the new 2003 Environment (not normally a problem but it can go wrong).
Its taken us months to go from the NT4\Ex5.5 environment to our current 2003 AD\Exchange 2007 environment, that's meant working a lot of weekends and late evenings testing. It's also lead to a lot of Application testing (you would be surprised at the amount of old apps still out there that don't understand AD), its cost us a fortune on hardware and licensing and it's still not complete.
Good luck mate
Simon
The real world is not about exam scores, it's about ability.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Locked
- Question