Windows Forum

Ask something
Discussion Locked

2 Servers, One Network

0 helpful
9 replies

by amw2003

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.
We have a small network based on Windows 2003 Small Business Server. We're thinking of introducing a second server on the network to ease the load on SBS2003. I know that trusts cannot be established between SBS2003 and other domains. What is the best way to integrate the second server (Windows 2003 Server) into the SBS LAN so users can access either one?

9 replies

by haileyan

You can still make it a member of (join) the SBS domain. No need to create a new domain.

by haileyan

I think he is looking to offload some services from SBS. Possibly make the new server a print & file server? Host sharepoint?

by adrian

I know this post is old but reply anyway.

It is quite easy, feasable and logical to want to load balance a product like SBS particularly with the reduced costs of hardware. One suggestion to anyone out there is the following configuration.

Main Server. SBS installed to handle Domain Controller, Exchange, DNS.

Second Server
Win 2003 Server joined to SBS Domain running as a File Server, Backup DNS Server,SMTP Relay Server (this has huge advantages when considering AntiSpam, Attachment, Antivirus etc), Printing.

Exchange Server is a huge product when used to capacity, Network Bandwidth is eaten, so why not seperate the roles of Exchange Bandwidth usage from File Sharing usage, particularly when large files are open across the Network. You can dramatically increase the perfomance of SBS.

Unlike most people, I do not use the 2nd NIC in an SBS connection. SBS is not the most secure Server Solution as most professionals will tell you. For the sake of a few quid, shove in a linux based solution for a firewall that will also handle all DHCP services, and you then get yourself a much more reliable and sturdy network backbone / firewall / port management solution. Suggestions are Smoothwall, IP Cop etc.

Benefits. Well, if your SBS Server goes down, you still have File Serving, DHCP Serving, Internet, DNS, Print Functions, Access to Cached Mailboxes and the ability to still work on e-mail (no new e-mail of course)

If your Second Server goes down, you still have E-Mail (fully functional), DNS, internet. Which for most people nowaday's is as important.

There is less likelihood of the Linux box failing as its much more robust than MS.

We could take this a stage further if anyone is interested.. !

Adrian Fowler, Managing Director
Apograph Data Systems LTD
United Kingdom

by adrian

I know this post is old but reply anyway.

It is quite easy, feasable and logical to want to load balance a product like SBS particularly with the reduced costs of hardware. One suggestion to anyone out there is the following configuration.

Main Server. SBS installed to handle Domain Controller, Exchange, DNS.

Second Server
Win 2003 Server joined to SBS Domain running as a File Server, Backup DNS Server,SMTP Relay Server (this has huge advantages when considering AntiSpam, Attachment, Antivirus etc), Printing.

Exchange Server is a huge product when used to capacity, Network Bandwidth is eaten, so why not seperate the roles of Exchange Bandwidth usage from File Sharing usage, particularly when large files are open across the Network. You can dramatically increase the perfomance of SBS.

Unlike most people, I do not use the 2nd NIC in an SBS connection. SBS is not the most secure Server Solution as most professionals will tell you. For the sake of a few quid, shove in a linux based solution for a firewall that will also handle all DHCP services, and you then get yourself a much more reliable and sturdy network backbone / firewall / port management solution. Suggestions are Smoothwall, IP Cop etc.

Benefits. Well, if your SBS Server goes down, you still have File Serving, DHCP Serving, Internet, DNS, Print Functions, Access to Cached Mailboxes and the ability to still work on e-mail (no new e-mail of course)

If your Second Server goes down, you still have E-Mail (fully functional), DNS, internet. Which for most people nowaday's is as important.

There is less likelihood of the Linux box failing as its much more robust than MS.

We could take this a stage further if anyone is interested.. !

Adrian Fowler, Managing Director
Apograph Data Systems LTD
United Kingdom

by cg it

If you are looking for redundancy there are installed services that run on the SBS 2003 box that you would have a hard time duplicating on the second box. the Sharepoint Intranet web site is one of them. Exchange 2003 is another. With the Premium Edition ISA 2000.

If the SBS box goes down, so do Exchange, ISA and Sharepoint, OWA.

you can have a DC on the same network and even assign it a GC role but again if the SBS box goes down you lose Exchange, ISA, OWA, Sharepoint.

by cg it

note: the SBS box is at the root of the domain and has all roles assigned to it. It's designed to be an All on one box small business network solution. you can if you wish have exchange on a seperate box [not install exchange on the SBS box, as well as ISA 2000 but then you have to buy Exchange plus CALs so one loses the cost benefit of SBS. You can have member servers and redundant DCs with SBS but you can't establish trusts with other domains and that includes child domains. So if you want to establish trusts or have child domains go with W2003 server standard edition.

by ctmoore1998

You should be able to "CLUSTER" SBS2003. That is one of the new abilities of the SBS2003, though it may require the advanced version.

by satiragh2

sir,i am having two sbs server computers connected in a single network i want to connect my client computers to there respective domain sbs2003 server in one network

This discussion is closed to new replies.