Re: Using 2000 SBS on a 2003 Standard Domain
- From: "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:38:05 -0700
That DL385 is a very nice box, too.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
Steve Foster [SBS MVP] wrote:
newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
This is the history of the situation. I was not involved in the
original setup of the server, so I get to resolve a whole bunch of bad
decisions. The current server is an IBM with Dual Xeon 2.0 Processors,
3GB RAM and 72GB drive space.
Doesn't sound too bad for an SBS server - though the CPUs are a little
dated now, and the drive space is obviously an issue.
The drives are full; everybody refuses
to clean mailboxes because all of the emails for the past 10 years are
"VERY IMPORTANT". The exchange server is taking a very heavy load for
the size of the company.
Well, Exchange in SBS2000 (and in SBS2003 prior to Exchange 2003 SP2) is
limited to 16Gb of storage for mailboxes, so that can't be where the space
is consumed.
50 users is no big deal to an Exchange Server anyway.
You could look at a product like GFI Mail Archiver to provide fully
searchable email archives while managing the amount of content that's
"live" in Exchange.
There is a great deal of shared data as well
at this point that is constantly being accessed. The company also is
growing very fast with possibly 25 new users within the next year.
Ideally what I would like to do is install the new server with File and
Print Sharing and yank the old server to reload over a long weekend. I
didn't have plans to use both as domain controller because I was under
the impression that a BDC can not exist in a Small Business Domain, It
would be great if it could work though. Is it possible to have both
2000SBS and 2003 Standard Ed server as domain controllers in the same
domain?
Yes, you can have additional DCs in an SBS domain. The concept of "BDC"
went away with NT4 though. DCs are practically all equal (other than the
FSMO Roles, some of which can have multiple DCs holding the role).
The simplest approach right now might simply be a swing to new hardware
and SBS2003. Raises your CAL limit to 75 CALs (which can be mixed between
Device and User CALs in any proportion that suits you), allows you bigger
mail stores (with Exchange2003 SP2) of upto 75Gb, disk quotas (to manage
that file growth), etc.
I recently built a HP DL385 for a customer which has ~600Gb disk space in
it, and it still has a spare drive bay!
The most we could have put in the thing internally would have been around
1.5Tb (in a RAID5 config).
Alternatively, if you reckon the existing hardware is actually stll pretty
reasonable, you could upgrade to SBS2003 on that, and just tweak the
hardware a little (up the RAM to 4Gb and add an external drive enclosure
to get more drives on it, or replace the existing drives with larger ones
and revise the RAID array[s]).
.
- References:
- Using 2000 SBS on a 2003 Standard Domain
- From: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Using 2000 SBS on a 2003 Standard Domain
- From: Steve Foster [SBS MVP]
- Re: Using 2000 SBS on a 2003 Standard Domain
- From: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Using 2000 SBS on a 2003 Standard Domain
- From: Steve Foster [SBS MVP]
- Using 2000 SBS on a 2003 Standard Domain
- Prev by Date: Re: Using 2000 SBS on a 2003 Standard Domain
- Next by Date: Re: Server a disaster .. need to manually save mailboxes
- Previous by thread: Re: Using 2000 SBS on a 2003 Standard Domain
- Next by thread: Using 2000 SBS on a 2003 Standard Domain
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
