Re: Breaking the rules?
From: Al Mulnick (amulnick_No_SPAM_at_ncDOTrr.com)
Date: 06/30/04
- Next message: Dan Wright: "Re: Subject: Where?: DMZ, DMZ w/NAT, LAN w/NAT, Proxy and Relay..."
- Previous message: Jason Parker: "Re: E2K3 / Changes to AD Schema"
- In reply to: admin too: "Breaking the rules?"
- Next in thread: admin too: "Re: Breaking the rules?"
- Reply: admin too: "Re: Breaking the rules?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:25:27 -0400
I wonder why I never get consulting gigs like this one :)
Yikes. What a PITA.
IMHO, log files are much more important than EDB's. Protect them at a cost
commensurate with your risk.
Depending on size and density of the server, you may not need to put
everything on separate RAID drives, but having RAID configuration is a best
practice you'll be glad you followed. Disk drives are moving parts and as
such have a lower MTBF compared to other components. Backups are a funny
thing: if you don't practice putting them back, they tend to not work when
you need them. Since no RAID would mean you'd be susceptible to many
failures, that may be a problem that takes care of itself. :)
As for the other item, that is something you have to figure out. You can
run Exchange on a single server along with DHCP, DC, GC, F/P, etc.
Microsoft has a product just for that called SBS. The difference is that
you won't be using SBS so you'll have to figure out how to balance all of
that on a single machine. That just translates to more work in the
development side. 20 users? You *might* get away with putting their
mailboxes on the other side of a WAN, but that totally depends on your other
infrastructure and other variables. There's a lot to consider when figuring
out which is best. Your risk is probably divided into several parts: the
user perception, the WAN link (saturation, reliability, etc), local
backup/support (central vs decentralized), development time, etc. You'll
have to decide what you're willing to risk or not and only you can put a
price on that risk. That's what a consultant can help you do....
Al
"admin too" <nguser2u@no.spam.AOL.com> wrote in message
news:10e6bbghic1as14@news.supernews.com...
> We are going from 5.5 to Exchange 2003 and outsourcing the labor. Vendor
#1
> has said you need to have two RAID setups for OS and logs and EDB because
> that is what Microsoft recommends. Vendor #2 has said there is no
advantage
> because if you lose either the logs or the EDB, you are restoring anyway!
>
> Another issue is, #1 said even for a very small (20 users) location we
must
> setup a separate Exchange server from the DC which is doing File and print
> and DHCP). We lived for five years with everything on one DC in that
> location. He said, just have a DC locally and have them connect across our
> VPN to the single exchange server. The second vendor said ' Hogwash, for
20
> users you can put everything on one nice new server with plenty of RAM and
a
> new Xeon CPU.
>
> I can save some big bucks using #2 but how big is the risk?
>
>
- Next message: Dan Wright: "Re: Subject: Where?: DMZ, DMZ w/NAT, LAN w/NAT, Proxy and Relay..."
- Previous message: Jason Parker: "Re: E2K3 / Changes to AD Schema"
- In reply to: admin too: "Breaking the rules?"
- Next in thread: admin too: "Re: Breaking the rules?"
- Reply: admin too: "Re: Breaking the rules?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
