Re: why use sbs over full ad domain servers?
- From: "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:13:38 -0800
And those four separate servers don't give you RWW. :)
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:efnUzoeKHHA.5000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SBS limitations.
http://www.sbslinks.com/Us_v_them.htm
But basically. 2 physical CPU's. 4GB RAM. No trusts. Single forest/domain. SBS must hold all FSMO roles. 75 CAL limit.
If the organisation does not require facility which exceeds these limits they get a major price break.
Is it easier to maintain 4 dedicated servers than 1 complex server? The jury is out.
Is it easier to maintain an SBS R2 network?(SBS, additional servers, and workstations) Definitely, integrated WSUS helps.
Can you mostly fudge it by putting WSUS on a nonSBS network, heck yeah, people do it all the time. It's not _quite_ the same though.
"collak" <ckelleher@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1167236793.988172.63800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxI have had seperate servers for each: exchange, backup, data, web for
years, with under 25 users. I have recently been thinking that maybe I
should change to SBS. What are the limitations of SBS and why should I
continue to maintain 4 or more servers over 1? We have also been
looking at CRM and it is much cheaper to go with SBS version of CRM, so
it has got me thinking....
Any thoughts?
Thanks.
Collak
.
- References:
- why use sbs over full ad domain servers?
- From: collak
- Re: why use sbs over full ad domain servers?
- From: SuperGumby [SBS MVP]
- why use sbs over full ad domain servers?
- Prev by Date: RE: WSS 3.0 - WSUS and default web site issue in R2
- Next by Date: Re: exchange server
- Previous by thread: Re: why use sbs over full ad domain servers?
- Next by thread: RIS and Mass Storage Driver
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|