Re: Best Choice
- From: "Kim Oppalfens" <Kim dot Oppalfens@google mail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:58:44 +0100
How about installing sms on server 3, and hosting the database on server 4?
--
Kim Oppalfens
Telindus Belgium
MVP Windows Server System - SMS
"JCLSB" <JCLSB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:579F070C-5CDD-4386-9570-FEFF1E5803FF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I have a client that has 4 2003 servers.
> 1. An Exchange Server (obviously not a good choice)
> 2. An application Server that is very busy (not a good choice)
> 3. File server (good choice, however no SQL installed)
> 4. Great Plains Server with SQL installed (obviously) that only has 10
> users at the most. It also has BlackBerry Enterprise Server installed for
> 20
> clients (This is my choice)
>
> If I install SMS on Server #4 above is there any reprocussions I should be
> aware of? There are aproximately 200 users in this domain.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: SMS 2003 instead of SMS 2.0
- Next by Date: Re: Forest-Wide Site Codes
- Previous by thread: Re: SMS 2003 instead of SMS 2.0
- Next by thread: SMS 2003 with Admin Rights to OU only
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
