2 servers with sbs and win 2k3 standard

[gianni20]

Hi guys i must install 2 hp servers (rackmount) on the first server i need windows 2003 standard edition (domain controller) and on the second server i need windows small business server for sql application software.
it's possible? or the 2 operating systems can will go in conflict?
i've read that the sbs must be the principal domain controller.
who can explain in clear mode this thing?
which is the hierarchical configuration?
thank's

 

[ShackDaddy]

If you are going to use SBS, you are deciding to create either a single-DC environment or a two-domain environment. An SBS server can't join an existing domain, and an SBS server must be in a domain. It also won't allow any other DC's in its domain. I recommend setting up the SBS server as the DC and the other server as a member server in that domain. Then make sure you have a good disaster-recovery plan in place for the SBS server.

SBS was built to be deployed in small business environments with fewer that 75 users. M$ sells it cheaply (only around $600 with 5 CALs!) and the catch is that they don't make it scalable. You can add servers to the domain, but they can't be DC's. You also can't add an SBS server into an existing AD infrastructure.

ShackDaddy

 

[gianni20]

if i've understand well i cant have a DC(hp server with win 2003 standard) and a exchange&sql server (with sbs premium).
i've just buyed the servers and the operating systems

 

[gianni20]

how i can user the other server if i must use sbs like DC sql and exchange server?

 

[ShackDaddy]

Just don't configure the Windows 2003 server to be a DC. Set it up as a member of the domain that the SBS server created when you set it up. Set up the SBS server first.

You don't have to run SQL/Exchange on the SBS server if you don't want to, but you will have to buy them as separate packages if you want to run them on the Windows2003 server, since the SBS licensing doesn't allow them to be moved elsewhere.

With SBS Premium, you have the DC, the SQL and the Exchange all on one box. You can host a web site on the other server, but you can't make the other server a DC, or run Exchange or SQL without purchasing SQL or Exchange software licenses separately.

Maybe you can send one of the servers back for a refund and get everything set up on your single SBS server.

Or spend the bucks for two copies of Windows 2003 server, Exchange, and SQL, and make one server a DC and the other your app host.

Being a DC isn't very process/memory intensive in the environment that it seems like you have, so I wouldn't be as concerned about where the DC function is running. If you are hosting something that the public hits directly, I'd be more worried about the security of running DC functions on a server that's also an application server. But for example, if one server was your web server and the SBS server held SQL data and the DC role, that would be a safer configuration.

Best bet there might even be not to join the other server to the SBS server's domain, so that you would have the two servers in two different authentication zones. This would only be practical for shielding your data/DC from public access.

ShackDaddy

 

[dkediger]

Actually, the Standard server can be a DC, it just can't be the first DC in the Domain - that must be the SBS Server.

As mentioned above, the bundled SBS apps (SQL/Exchange/ISA) must also be installed on the SBS server as they won't install on other Windows servers.

Basically, what you'll get is your SBS server loaded with apps and your Standard server just ticking away in the corner, providing some load balance for AD and drive storage, but little else.

If you feel you need 2 servers, and the SBS limits are restrictive, you can contact Microsoft about Transition licenses for SBS to a full server and separately licensed Exchange/SQL/ISA. It'll cost you some more $$, but then that's part of the deal with SBS. See:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/howtobuy/pricing.mspx#ENAA

 

[gianni20]

You don't have to run SQL/Exchange on the SBS server if you don't want to, but you will have to buy them as separate packages if you want to run them on the Windows2003 server, since the SBS licensing doesn't allow them to be moved elsewhere."

yes but if i make this i hadn't need sbs...

"Best bet there might even be not to join the other server to the SBS server's domain, so that you would have the two servers in two different authentication zones. This would only be practical for shielding your data/DC from public access"

in this mode the distribution lists are together on the 2 server?

 

[ShackDaddy]

As far as your question about distribution lists, I assume you are talking about setting domain-level permissions on the server. No. You wouldn't be able to add domain users to a permissions list on a stand-alone server. I would only use this if you needed the security for a public-facing web server environment.

As far as SBS and a second DC, dkediger is right, I am wrong about that. You can run both servers as DC's but no matter what, the SBS server has to be a DC.

It's a popular myth that you can't run an extra DC off an SBS server, and I fell for it. I'm excited now...

ShackDaddy

 

[dkediger]

You don't really gain any automagic "failover" capacity, as the Domain is "marked" as an SBS domain and will shutdown in the absence of the SBS server. It is useful if you would have some remote offices in the domain that would benefit from local AD authentication, but that's about it.

I suppose it does preserve AD as well for when a new SBS server could be introduced - but I'm not 100% on that.

 

[gianni20]

i've just configured the 2 servers. i've make a DC on a windows 2003 standard. after i've installed sbs and configured the active directory like the last server of a domain.
it seems work well...
when i make users(with their mail recipients) on sbs automaticaly they compare on the dc win 2003 standard.