Re: Easy to use second 2000 Server for Exchange?
From: Frank McCallister SBS MVP (anonymous)
Date: 10/18/04
- Next message: swissrobert: "Re: vpn error - log attached"
- Previous message: Ken Schaefer: "Re: Bad_Pool_Caller Stop 0x000000c2"
- In reply to: al: "Re: Easy to use second 2000 Server for Exchange?"
- Next in thread: al: "Re: Easy to use second 2000 Server for Exchange?"
- Reply: al: "Re: Easy to use second 2000 Server for Exchange?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:55:46 -0500
Hi Al
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 is true now but this means you are locking the client in to the present
number of users. If they grow at all they will have to buy double CALs one
for SBS and and equal number for Exchange. If integrated they would only
have to buy one set. If you are certain they won't grow then this isn't an
issue of course.
-- Frank McCallister SBS MVP COMPUMAC "al" <al@al.com> wrote in message news:uOK1imMtEHA.2316@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > 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 >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >> >> > >
- Next message: swissrobert: "Re: vpn error - log attached"
- Previous message: Ken Schaefer: "Re: Bad_Pool_Caller Stop 0x000000c2"
- In reply to: al: "Re: Easy to use second 2000 Server for Exchange?"
- Next in thread: al: "Re: Easy to use second 2000 Server for Exchange?"
- Reply: al: "Re: Easy to use second 2000 Server for Exchange?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
