IT Employment

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Need Opinions

0 helpful
13 replies

by thumper1 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I am the NW Admin for two law firms, splitting my time between the two. One firm has 11 Attorneys. Presently, on a Novell 4.11 Server with GroupWise 5.2. The Accounting program is on a separate Windows 2000 server that run the accounting program only.
We are getting ready to replace the Novell servers with Windows 2003 servers, adding Exchange 2003 and seem to have a difference of opinion on server requirements:
I maintain that Exchange should be on a separate server. Client data and programs that run on the network should not be on the same server with exchange.
One of the Attorneys maintains that Exchange and client data will be fine on the same server. We have about 6G of sensitive client data that I do not want to risk.
I have always thought that Exchange belongs on a separate server. Who is right?
Thanks
Bill

13 replies

by jamesrl

I have had the unpleasant task of dealing with an Exchange server that slowly corrupts over time. The restore time is many hours. Can you afford to be without your accounting data while someone is restoring your mail boxes??

Exchange is a bear - don't put other applications on the same box if you wish to retain your sanity.

James

by afram

I strongly suggest having a dedicated exchange server. Employee storage could contain viruses that might damage the mail server. Also, copying data to and from the server is a drain on resources.

It will also take longer to back up the exchange server if it has to back up all the user data too.

I suggest keeping the install as clean as possible

by jdmercha

Technically with only 11 people, you could run it all from a single server. But I agree with the previous postings, that this is not desirable. Especially if you have sensitive client data. I would also want the file server to be isolated from the Internet. Preferably on a different subnet from the Exchange server.

Which brings up another question. With only 11 accounts, why would you run your own email server anyway? What about a web server? I'd look into a web hosting service that will provide email as well.

by amcol

Why does an attorney get to weigh in on an issue of technical architecture?

Do you, as the network admin, get consulted on legal strategies?

Whether you're talking about the managing partner, the administrative partner, an associate, or a paralegal, no one but you really knows what they're talking about. To the attorney who's providing his/her considered opinion on this matter, it's just a question of money. Co-locating Exchange (BTW, you and the other posters are correct...it's definitely the wrong thing to do) means one less server to buy, never mind the potential consequences. That's where the attorney is coming from.

You need to assert yourself a little more. If you agree to implement as he/she is recommending you're going to be the one holding the bag when the server crashes and everything is offline. I'm quite certain the attorney will be happy to leap to your defense when that happens...aren't you?

Stick to your guns. Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still wrong. Present your case for isolating Exchange on its own server in a reasoned, professional fashion without editorializing. Show the pros and cons of each approach in such a way that the correct answer is obvious.

by oz_media

You have no need for Exchange that GW 6.5 won't resolve and then compliment.

Weigh your needs and available options before deciding how to implement it. A GW upograde will be SO much easier and a LOT cheaper.

by dafe2

(However SBS 2003 does not isolate Exchange.)

I have to wonder what's driving this change....this seems like an awfull lot of server to throw at 11 users???

If they insist on an MS solution would SBS not make more sense?

by thumper1

Thanks to everyone who responded. This network has 25 total users. The thought of running Exchange along with file and print sharing really scares me. In eight years, the servers on this network (3) have been down a total of four hours. I think that's a fairly good record.
Bill

by nirdla

You have 25 users only? Take a look at Novell small business suite 6.5! that includes, GW 6.5, Zenworks, Netware 6.5, Fax server, Firewall, etc. I think 5 or 10 users are FREE! You will only pay for the service and additional licenses. And believe me, Novell solutions is much better than microsoft. Go for a little research.. You can also opt for Linux as platform. OPEN and SECURED.

Good Luck.
Happy GW and Novell solution users.

by gaston nusimovich

IMHO, any attorney has no business with such a technical decision.

He seems to be concerned with a budget issue.

That is an important issue, but should come after the technical issues have been dealt with.

It makes no sense to put sensitive data to risk just to save money.

The main purpose of the server or servers in this case is to take care of business data. It is both a technical and business decision.

You should pursue and defend the separate servers architecture: Mail server (Exchange) separate from the File/Print (SQL Server ?) Server.

The mail services have different configuration and optimization requirements than the file/print/application services.

These thecnical aspects have serious business implications, and you need a technical background to asses these issues.

Good luck!

by dafe2

It includes the Exchange 'Role' built in to it.

I thought (You) may want to consider it based on the size of your network as a good safe solution.

There's no doubt in my mind that the lawyer is 'over stepping' his bounds, but aside from that SBS 2003 may be a good fit & is built specifically for your situation.

Just another solution to consider as the responsible admin you seem to be.

by oz_media

NOvell's SBS doesn't charge for the server copies and costs $95 per user for licencing, with 5 servers free. Pretty cheap.

It also offers a LOT more out of the BOX than MS SBS does, again only $95/user.

[b]Novell SBS allows 5 servers FREE[/b] , MSSBS allows 1 and is more explpensive not even considering the additional licencing needed to add the proper Software Licene add-ons for products Novell includes. MS SBS cannot expand and grow with your business needs.

Hardware costs are MUCH higher when looking at MS. MSserver 2003 with MySQL is stated to support 50 users on one server, with Novell 6.5 you can have 1200-1300 users with the same hardware. A DRAMATIC difference in resource management and hardware costs.

MS SBS CAN handle 75 users but MS documentation says 50. Novell easily handles 100 users. Again as you business grows, MS doesn't.

NOvell SBS administration tools are centralized and robust, MS offers a limited set of tools, resulting in more support time.

The long and skinny, MS SBS will be inadeqaute even at your current level. If your business grows, new hardware, new server and user liceneces and more additional software licences needed.

Netware 6.5, $95/user, 5 servers with the SBS (at no additional cost per server)You just pay for users, the servers are free.
Easy to expand and upgrade, no need for new hardware, an upgrade from your existing platform will be even cheaper still.

I can see many reasons why to stay with Novell, I haven't yet seen a valid reason for switching to MS though.

Put the Novell TCO and out of the box solutions to a lawyer and see if he can offer a fair case to support his choices. Not to mention you already HAVE netware installed and it will cost far less to impement a worthwhile upgrade than moving to a new and less secure platform.

This discussion is closed to new replies.