Re: Easy to use second 2000 Server for Exchange?

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

From: al (al_at_al.com)
Date: 10/18/04 

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 05:19:19 +0100

Hi,

Please don't get offended because I don't agree with your view of SBS - I
just think its a bit of a limited view point - and maybe one not based on
real experience of the product outside a single server implementation; I'd
guess you have never run it other than like that.

It comes down to: is it better to have a centralised point of resource (the
SBS server with Exchange 2003 etc.) - or to run a more balanced network with
two servers so you don't have the single point of failure - but using
Exchange 2000 (this is the scenario here). This is a 'no brainer' for most -
redundancy, reliability and availability are worth far more than the extra
features of Exchange 2003 over 2000 - which most probably have never used.
If these extra features were a real 'must have' benefit to a customer, then
fair enough, but for the clients I see this isn't the case; and I suspect
this is the general case. Email is email in the main.

The 'latest feature's comment relates mainly to wireless device access
(though I am aware of all the essential differences in Exchange 2003) - how
many clients use these futures of SBS do you think? Not many I'd guess.
Smart phones etc? - still emerging and changing. You obviously have many
Windows Mobile 2003 users, so maybe this is important to you. The other new
features are not really massively user oriented - go and research the
differences if you doubt this. If a customer needed to take advantage of
these features in a meaningful way then I think it may be appropriate to
consider that route. And are one year old product features mature in your
mind? you will find that they aren't in the minds of most IT practitioners.

You miss the point re. RCP over HTTP - multiple existing user apps use a VPN
link so switching to a new way to connect for just one app (Outlook) gains
no advantage. A nice feature - but not a reason to use Exchange 2003 for
existing remote users - specially as it only works with XP clients (with SP2
at that). Also there is virtually no overhead with VPNs' as long as you use
hardware based VPN endpoint - the only way I ever recommend, and a decent
VPN client.

Re. Exchange CALs you didn't understand the scenario - they already have an
Existing Exchange 2000 server - therefore have the CALs - so no new ones are
needed. That will not be a backup Exchange server (which wasn't suggested),
it will be 'the' Exchange server on a separate box within the SBS domain;
could even be an Exchange 2003 server, but because 2000 is close enough to
Exchange 2003 (and already paid for) its not worth upgrading.

With real world experience you will know that nothing is 100% reliable - no
matter how many RAID levels you have - a PSU blows, memory fails - could be
anything. This is irrespective of any 'proper config'. Surely you are aware
of reliability/redundancy/availability and how they are increased with
distribution of resources? It also makes server admin easier. These are
simple concepts.

I'm reasonably aware of SBS and it's quirks - its always worked 100% fine
for me in all the versions I have implemented - 4.5, 2000 and 2003 - or I
would never use it. I see some won't touch it but I find it a good product
(I've never had any real issue in 4 years) - though it's slow sometimes on
basic hardware. I'm sure SBS 2003 will be fine with the enhanced redundancy
and performance of a dual server network - in the same way implemented
previously (SBS 2000 + NT) - which was what I was actually asking about -
ie. a simple technical point (*not* weather it is a good idea or not - I
already know that it is.)

The key is this isn't about 'the technology' or what the techie implementer
thinks should be used because the technical details excite you or getting
carried away with Microsoft's 'this is why you need to upgrade' page - its
about getting the best overall solution for the specified customer
requirement while keeping all variables in mind. The difference is
technology focus vs. customer focus.

I'll post my results here so we can all share an alternate way of
implementing a distributed and reliable network to the advantage of the
customer - that's why we are all here : )

"Cris Hanna (SBS-MVP)" <crishannanospam@computingpossibilities.net> wrote in
message news:e6LnbJKtEHA.3200@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Not my place to judge how you run your business or the service you provide
> your customers, but seems like a big disservice to your clients to be put
> a
> Server out there when you are not well versed in the features and services
> it has to offer.
>
> See my remarks inline to your responses.
>
> --
> CRIS HANNA
> SBS-MVP
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Please do not respond to me directly by email but only in the newsgroups
> so
> that all can benefit from the information
> "al" <al@al.com> wrote in message
> news:%23f8Kk0HtEHA.2316@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> Actually I have only done this with SBS 2000 and NT - not SBS 2003 and
> 2000
>> so its a bit different - hence my question in case there was some major
>> obstacle that I completely missed.
>>
>> Hey, come on, all those features you mentioned are not going to be used
>> by
>> the average small client to justify anyting really.
>>
>> 1. The open relay - well you shouldn't even be setting up Win 95 if you
> are
>> unaware of issues like this - 3 clicks to stop? (Yes, I do know what sort
> of
>> peole sometimes are set loose on servers - so yes maybe that good for
> them).
>>
>> 2. Those wireless options are too new for me to even look at - you know
>> as
>> well as I do that this will be packed full of issues until everyone is up
> to
>> speed with this technology. I currenly implement Blackberry which doesnt
>> rely on this. As a rule I never implement the latest features like this
>> as
>> they always have issues when they hit the ground at your client - and if
> you
>> are experienced you know this is true with so many 'sounds good'
>> technologies. Might be nice for the future though.
> I'm not sure how you can suggest that you would be "implementing the
> latest
> features" when SBS 2003 has been out for over a year. We've already had
> SP1
>>
>> 3. RCP over HTTP - this may be worth investigating for some setups - but
> my
>> remote setups connect to Exchange using a VPN - I find it faster and more
>> reliable than current OWA and they get the full Outlook functionality. I
>> dont know enough about this featue to see if it could replace the VPN but
>> all users I advise use muti applications remotely - not just Exchange.
> With this technology you get ALL the functionality of Outlook and Exchange
> and none of the overhead of VPN
>>
>> 4. I think I can actually install Outlook 2003 (which *is* a worthwhile
> user
>> improvement) under the SBS licence asnd then connect to an Existing 2000
>> server - need to check this. Its the CALs which determine which server
>> can
>> be accessed not the ability to actually install Outllook 2003.
> Legally you can install OL2003 on any machine in your domain which
> authenicates to your SBS domain BUT
> Your SBS cals do not cover the Old Exchange Server so you need separate
> Exchange Cals for that
>>
>> Yes, keep going on features if you want - if there are real, tangible,
> user
>> benefits I would not go to a separate Exchange server - but there
>> aren't -
>> the opposite infact. Given the choice I would use a separate Exch 2003
>> server bit if the choice is SBS Exch 2003 or separate Exch 2000 server -
>> I
>> think the latter wins out for the client.
>>
>>
>> Its not about 'believeing in a product' (hello - do you work for MS?? -
>> joke) but if you ever have administered an SBS network without all the
> core
>> apps on one system you would know what I am saying. Have you tried a
> split
>> like this - seen how it outperforms a single SBS server etc. I have
> nothing
>> against SBS - its just software!! I was only asking on a technical point
> but
>> people seem to jump in without having actually done a real world
> comparison.
>>
>> You are dead right - its cheaper by miles to use SBS for SQL and that is
>> a
>> prime reason for SBS for me - though Im not selling anything to anyone
> yet -
>> I havent met the client yet but I know this solution will work well (from
>> SBS 2000/NT 4 setups). *I appreciate all the feedback* as it makes me
>> consider different things and I wil run through all the options.
>>
>>
>> Not sure how you in reality reduce costs for users with a single SBS as
> you
>> say - other than ££ of a second physical box but they have that already
> and
>> install may be a bit longer - but these are far outweighed by a
> distributed
>> solution in my experience. The redundancy completely outweighs any small
>> extra admin costs - ever costed a lost days work becase the SBS server is
>> off and nothing is available? - its very pricey.
> No I don't work for Microsoft, yes I've worked in 5000 user networks with
> multiple master domains and Bridgehead Exchange Servers and the like
> And there are reasons for multiple Exchange Servers, but for the most part
> its load and organizational structure.
>
> But given an environment of 75 users or less and not expected to grow
> beyond
> that for 3 years. I'll take a properly spec'd box with SBS 2003 anyday.
> If you've got the proper config, you won't loose a day, maybe an hour,
> thats
> what mirroring and raid are for.
>
> SBS in all versions has its particular quirks and IMHO you have not done
> enough homework to be full aware of them, so my guess is we'll see you
> back
> here for help unraveling it, but thats ok, cause thats why we are all here
> to share our knowledge and experience with designing implementing and
> maintaining SBS servers
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> al.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Cris Hanna (SBS-MVP)" <crishannanospam@computingpossibilities.net> wrote
> in
>> message news:%23veddUHtEHA.224@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> > Exchange 2003 as bundled with SBS 2003 has so many advantages over 2000
>> > where should I begin.
>> >
>> > Strickly from a security standpoint, Exchange 2000 is a wide open relay
>> > unless you know how and take steps to "close it up". Exchange 2003 has
>> > those holes closed up.
>> >
>> > If you are using wireless remote devices such as an Windows Mobile 2003
>> > (smartphone or pocket pc) then you access to OMA
>> >
>> > You can do away with OWA and its overhead and use Outlook over HTTP for
>> > remote users...
>> >
>> > Then there is the whole functionality of OL 2003!!
>> >
>> > Shall I keep going??
>> >
>> > Its strikes me that you sold this small client SBS Premium so they
>> > could
>> > have SQL at a really cheap price but you don't really believe in the
>> > product
>> > and what its integrated setup can do to reduce costs for users and cut
>> > admin
>> > for support.
>> >
>> > You already know that what you are proposing will work because as you
> say,
>> > you've done the split componenet setup at other locations.
>> >
>> > --
>> > CRIS HANNA
>> > SBS-MVP
>> > --------------------------------------------------------
>> > Please do not respond to me directly by email but only in the
>> > newsgroups
>> > so
>> > that all can benefit from the information
>> > "al" <al@al.com> wrote in message
>> > news:%237$QdMFtEHA.3564@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Well there isn't much difference between Exchange 2003 and 2000 for a
>> > small
>> >> client (or 5.5 for that matter) - I'm not sure I know any significant
>> >> differences off the top of my head. From a redundancy and performance
>> >> side
>> >> of things (and all sides of things probably) its a much better
>> >> solution
>> >> to
>> >> split your functions across servers - its common practice.
>> >>
>> >> SBS implementers often never see larger sites where you never lump
>> >> your
>> > apps
>> >> together on a server - its just too problematic. Is SBS generally ok
> for
>> >> running all on one server - yes of course - I have a client with SBS
>> > 2003 -
>> >> runs fine. But given the choice I would definitely split the
> functions -
>> > but
>> >> it costs.
>> >>
>> >> Still, anyone have comments on the orginal question - about the 2nd
>> >> domain
>> >> controller install for an Exchange platform?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Al.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]"
>> >> <sbradcpa@pacbell.net>
>> >> wrote in message news:%23QMi$fBtEHA.2800@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> >> > I'd want Exchange 2003 and not 2000. It goes fine on one box.
>> >> >
>> >> > al wrote:
>> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks for the reply - I am not using the bundled Exchange server -
> I
>> >> >> just won't install this component. I will be using an *existing*
>> > Exchange
>> >> >> server (separate box).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For an exisitng server to appear as part of the SBS domain I will
> have
>> > to
>> >> >> mess around and maybe reinstall the separate Exchange server(?)
>> >> >> That
>> > was
>> >> >> the scenario I was asking about.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Al.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Frank McCallister SBS MVP" <anonymous> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:uRxeoo$sEHA.3788@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Hi Al
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Echange 2003 which comes with SBS must be installed on the SBS and
> Not
>> > on
>> >> >>>a different server. The old server will make a good Terminal Server
> if
>> >> >>>you have a need for TS.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>--
>> >> >>>Frank McCallister SBS MVP
>> >> >>>COMPUMAC
>> >> >>>"al" <al@al.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>>news:%23mjouG%23sEHA.992@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>Hi,
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>I'm looking at a new SBS 2003 Premium insatll for a client. They
> have
>> >> >>>>plain 2000 server running Exchange at the moment (not sure of
>> > version).
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>I want to use SBS as the main server on a new box for file/print
> and
>> >> >>>>SQL. I then want to use the existing box as a separate Exchange
>> >> >>>>server
>> >> >>>>(I do this elsewhere with plain NT setups and its very good for
>> >> >>>>redundancy and maintenance and loading etc.)
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Are there any issues - other than probably re-installing the
> existing
>> >> >>>>2000 server into the SBS domain and reloading Exchange if needed.
>> > Maybe
>> >> >>>>there are some licensing issues - but they are already licensed
>> >> >>>>for
>> >> >>>>Exchange so maybe not!
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Thanks for any input.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Al.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm
>> >> > http://www.msmvps.com/bradley
>> >> > https://www.ecora.com/ecora/jump/pm99.asp
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: MS Exchange server on FreeBSD?
    ... And he surely knows what all of the features of Exchange ... Create a server platform that is modular ... Monopolies aren't necessarily bad, it's when they abuse that position ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: So why SBS?
    ... Public folders will be in the next version.. ... The sad part of most of us is that we haven't even tried or practiced a backup/restore and we freak out over a 'single" SBS box when we haven't even tried to restore it from a harddrive. ... Exchange seems to mix its words and titles, the global/generic use of POP and SMTP for just about every Exchange function is dumb, MailEnable understands post office protocol and simple mail transfer protocol in a "meaningfull" way. ... The standard profiles in Server are quite effective assuming you add new users to the correct account in the first place and your note running more than 1 file server. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Easy to use second 2000 Server for Exchange?
    ... Existing Exchange 2000 server - therefore have the CALs - so no new ones are ... Frank McCallister SBS MVP ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: So why SBS?
    ... Public folders will be in the next version.. ... If SBS isn't for you...that's fine. ... Mailenable is an example of a freeware or pay for extra's, mail server. ... It is infinitly simpler to configure than Exchange once installed. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Email for second domain
    ... The Microsoft Exchange MTA Stacks service is normally disabled on Exchange 2003 Servers on SBS 2003. ... You can safely ignore the MTA warning messages on the SBS 2003 server. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)