Question

Locked

network redundancy

By wancona ·
I have an HP ProLiant ML350 G5 running SBS 2003 as the server for my network. At present time, my budget doesn't allow for another server to setup in case something happens to this physical computer. I was thinking about virtualizing the network on the ProLiant and creating a Virtual network to run my physical network, and allow me more "Servers". The HP has a quad core processor with 4 gb of RAM and 1.5 tb of storage. Is this a good idea?

Also, what would be a good method of doing this, without loosing production time for the workers.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

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

All Answers

Collapse -

upgrade or migrate

by CG IT In reply to network redundancy

to Windows Server 2003, then go to Windows Virtual Server.

you can then use Windows Virtual Clients as well and run thin desktops.

SBS limitation is 4 GB of memory and 2 processors so if you bought a quad core, SBS will only allow 2. Waste of $$. Also you can't seperate out Exchange/Sharepoint/ISA to run on seperate servers. SBS is designed to run on one box.

As far as redundancy, you can have member servers and even other DCs plus another exchange but all FSMO roles and all SBS components run on the one box

Collapse -

good idea?

by wancona In reply to upgrade or migrate

How about this idea? I heard that there was some way to convert the physical computer into a virtual computer? The only one I found was to run on Linux. I think it was VMWare ESX 3.5.

Is there one that works for Windows?
If so, what if I convert a copy of the physical drive into the virtual, run that on a workstation that has virtual pc. Have my network point to the copied virtual dc. Then I put a regular OS on the HP, install virtual server, and place the virtual "SBS" and other servers back on the quad core HP to utilize the other two processors, and RAM?

Again, just a thought, I'm trying to get familiar with this virtual stuff because I know it is the future of networking, and I want to make sure I understand correctly.

Am I on it, or am I missing the mark?

Edited: Also. currently not using Exchange or other functionalities except for SharePoint. This is how the network was when I first got here.

I don't really understand why Microsoft would combine all these server functions into one, when we are taught and Microsoft recommends having an expanded server network.

Collapse -

I know that SBS can be installed on

by CG IT In reply to good idea?

on a virtual machine, which gives them the ability to run other servers on the same machine.

But you want redundancy of the SBS network, and SBS does not support trusts between domains, does not support moving FSMO roles to other servers, and also doesn't allow you to move components like Exchange and Sharepoint to other servers. so parallel SBS domains for redundancy won't work unless manually change the redundant SBS as you change the production SBS. Should the production take a dive, you then put the redundant system online and change everyone's DNS to the redundant SBS.

Here's a technet article on virtual server and SBS.

http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServerSolutions/SBS/en/library/01d1dcf4-f0e5-45c9-aa44-6aac01677fdc1033.mspx?mfr=true

Collapse -

thanks, a little personal ?

by wancona In reply to I know that SBS can be in ...

Do you have an opinion about Virtualizing networks?

Collapse -

cuts down on # of servers needed

by CG IT In reply to thanks, a little personal ...

If you remember the old days of mainframe based applications with desktops as just thin clients, then thats what I see desktop virtualization technology direction as being. Goes with web based applications like Googles office online or microsoft online and gigabit networks.

Back in the old days, there was only 10baseT networks and with large business having sometimes hundreds of clients trying to access mainframes, the infrastructure and mainframe computing power couldn't handle the traffic and load.

So offload to the applications to the desktop.

I think for large businesses that have a big server farm or web hosting companies, server virtualization really cuts down on total cost of ownership. no need for large warehouses of servers.

For smaller companies, virtualization adds an element of complexity that requires specialized skills that might not be cost effective.

An analogy would be the medical field. Used to be doctors were general practioners. Now, almost every area of the medical field is a specialist. With that specialization comes increased costs.

The IT field is similar. Gone are the days of the generalist. Everything is complex so the need for specialist. Businesses have to hire all these specialist to cover the complex computer network and desktop environment.

Back to Networks Forum
5 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums