General discussion

Locked

Getting away from 2000 SBS

By Lost_one ·
I need some advice on server setup.

Currently we have 1 Small Business Server (AD, email, website, and FTP site are the main services running on it) 1 file server, and 1 Database server (Global Shop). We just had our SBS server crash 2 weeks ago and it took 3 days to get everything up and running again on a new server (many late night and ungodly amounts of stress). I would like to move off the SBS for obvious reasons (everything running on one server=very bad). I am thinking of moving up to 2-2000 Servers or 2003 Servers and a server just for Exchange. The 2 servers would be setup as 1 PDC and 1 BDC for replication of AD. I would also like to replicate the exchange server somehow (that is the main reason for posting). What I am looking for is more redundancy in the network so if one server goes down we have little to no downtime, especially for email.

I would like to know if I am on the right track or if I am in the clouds somewhere dreaming. I would also like to know how some of your servers are setup.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

10 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Some Thoughts

by BFilmFan In reply to Getting away from 2000 SB ...

First, there are no BDC's in Active Directory, only ohter domain controllers, which may or may not have FSMO roles associated with them.

I would advise you to look over the documentation at Jeff Middleton's site and use his tool to perform the migration. http://www.sbsmigration.com/

You will not be able to simply add more domain controllers and Exchange servers and stand-down SBS. This is the reason that I have never advised small organizations to use SBS. It is simply a nightmare and expensive to migrate from the product.

Collapse -

Novell SBS

by pgm554 In reply to Some Thoughts

Ya wabt cheaper ,faster, more reliable?

Go Novell Small Business Server ,
You can use Linux or NW as an OS.
You can have up to 5 servers in the tree,(no extra licensing costs)and it has EVERYTHING that M$ has at about 1/3 the price,plus you get 5 free support incidents.

www.novell.com/smallbiz

Collapse -

Novel SBS

by BFilmFan In reply to Novell SBS

The only argument I can produce to not use Novell is their recent layoffs remind me of a company slowly headed under. And they have been losing market share for a decade now.

Collapse -

M$ has been saying that for years

by pgm554 In reply to Novel SBS

They still have lot's of money in the bank ,they are now turning a profit on Linux .

Novell products are still faster,cheaper and better than anything M$ has to offer.

So what you are saying is not to use a better product, because a perceived (perpetuated by M$ and they have been sued and lost a couple of 100k for saying it in the past)issue with their finances.

Novell is will be around foe a good many years to come.

Collapse -

by Andrew06 In reply to Getting away from 2000 SB ...

Ok, im not being picky or anything;

But why would you have all those services running on one server?

Would you think that it would be dangerous to have an FTP server that is exposed to teh internet also hosting Active Directory for local users?

I would've chucked the website, email and ftp all on one server, and then active directory and file server on another.

I dont know if its a good idea, but what if you had Exchange running on one server, and had a small dedicated box that stored its main files but also mirrors them onto the other server incase it fails.

So basically, the users access exchange off Server 1, where all the files and settings are stored. Now this directory is automatically synchronised with another share on Server 2, whereby if server 1 went down, Server 2 could be setup in a few minutes, changing the settings etc, and up and running. While you're fixing SErver 1

What do you think? Does it make sense?

Collapse -

Everything on one box

by BFilmFan In reply to

That is how Small Business Server functions.

I admit I don't care for the product myself, but it was designed for very small offices of 10-25 people and not to be used by a growing company.

Think your local Mom and Pop store that just needs a server.

Collapse -

Hmm

by Andrew06 In reply to Everything on one box

Yeh, but I was thinking security wise in regards to having something such as a webserver and FTP on a box that hosts Active Directory and local files.

Collapse -

Ok, what should I have

by Lost_one In reply to Getting away from 2000 SB ...

I need to have the following running on the servers.

FTP
Website with OWA
Active Directory
Veritas (Backup software)
Exchange
ISA
DNS
DHCP

We have 3 main location so I could have one or more of the server at other locations.

We want little downtime in the event someting should happen.

I am open to your suggestions.

Collapse -

by Andrew06 In reply to Ok, what should I have

All the externally exposed servers like FTP, Website on one box. DNS, DHCP and Exchange on another. Then that just leaves the A/D and Veritas and ISA on the other.

Depends what you're allowed.

Collapse -

My thinking

by Lost_one In reply to

Website, FTP and ISA on the same server (all going to the internet) AD, DNS, DHCP and veritas on the 2nd and Exchange on the 3rd.

Back to IT Employment Forum
10 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums