Additional SERVER vs. Cluster(Fail-Over)

[outofcontrol]

Hello everyone; let me start off by saying that everyone on this board has been helpful to me as a Novice. Here is my dilemma today



I currently have one server that is running Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition. That one server supports 125 people in our office, of which 100 just use EMAIL from remote using either OWA or POP3 client. The server has about six web sites running on it that have little or no volume on them. Our server runs our SQL, Exchange, Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition as well as a CRM package. The performance on the system is excellent.

I know that the company should have split this server into three, possible four, other servers, (1) ADC and (1) SQL and (1) Exchange and (1) IIS but they didn’t for a variety of reasons and now I am stuck with what I have.

Here are my choices that I think I have since money is an issue at our company; buy one additional server and split Exchange and IIS off onto its own box to lesson the effect any major downtime OR buy a cluster server(fail-over)(if I am using the right term) so that we have TWO identical servers and if one goes down the other will take over.

Thanks again

 

[mrdenny]

Having a cluster would also require the purchase of a shared storage solution. This would not be cheep. With money being an issue, I'd focus more on your disaster recovery plan and equiptment.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com

(Not quite so old any more.)

 

[asktheman]

mrdenny is correct, cluster server consist of at least two nodes (servers) build identical and attached to a external storage array, I would suggest a HP MSA 1000, you would also using a MSL tape library for backup. but this is a expensive solution. What you company need to deside is how important uptime is. And yes giving the options you have a DR solution would be best.. remember you should never have a DC running on a cluster.. Causes all sorts of issues during a restore.

You could also install a second server and move exchange and iis over. make sure you use RAID for disk. You should really site down with management and stress the important if investing in IT infrastructure.. Again how business critical is your uptime?

 

[outofcontrol]

asktheman and mrdenny; it looks like both of you agree that the cheaper way is to avoid a cluster at this time.

Would your recommendation be to move Exchange and IIS to the other server or move SQL and IIS to the other server??

We are still working on Disaster recovery and are doing a good job making sure that backups run every night but in the event of a one machine going down, we can always overload the second machine.

The next thing I am purchasing is redundant routers and a backup DSL line with a failover.

Would you suggest two additional servers(one for exchange and one for SQL)

Also will the system copy active directory over from one computer to another in the event of an outage??

Thanks so much for your help

 

[mrdenny]

In a perfect work SQL and Exchange should be on thier own servers. They are both very resource intensive.

When you get another server you will want to make it a domain controller on your network. That way if your current server goes down people can still log into the network.

If you only have one domain controller and it goes down, it will be very hard to get another domain controller setup.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com

(Not quite so old any more.)

 

[outofcontrol]

Thanks Mr Denny

It appears that I can only afford to get one additional server at this time. Since I have exchange and IIS and SQL all running on one server what would be the easiest to move to the new server??

My hunch would be IIS and SQL but not sure. Any information would be appreciated

Thanks

 

[mrdenny]

I agree, I would think IIS and SQL would be the easiest to move. I'm not an Exchange admin so I'm not sure what's envolved in moving an exchange server from one server to another.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com

(Not quite so old any more.)

 

[asktheman]

I would suggest that you move Exchange and IIS to the new server. IIS is one of the components that Exchange uses. If you are using OWA.. it would make sence to have Exchange and IIS on the same box.

Asktheman
MCSE(2000/2003) AD/Exchange Migration engineer.

 

[outofcontrol]

Asktheman

Is there a document that would help in migrating exchange over to the new box. It seems like every time I touch exchange I have to call Microsoft.

 

[MikeBatters]

Exchange migrations are pretty easy.

Install Exchange as an additional server in the same site as the existing one. Apply all the SPs etc.

Then in the AD highlight a user and select Exchange tasks and you will be able to move the mailbox. Wait a few minutes after the move completes and the user will be able to start up outlook which should be clever enough to reconfigure the MAPI profile automatically.

The only real things to be aware of beyond this are:

SMTP Mail Routing - Just be sure you can change the way in & out of the organsiation
Public Folders - If you have lots of Public Folders make sure they all replciate.

The nice thing about this method is that you can just move one mailbox (yours) and test things for a day or two whereas moving SQL is a "Big Bang" where everything changes at once.

Post back if you would like more info.

PS: I agree with the original question of cluster vs extra-server. With budget being restricted and the existing hardware as it is an extra-server is the only logical choice. A Packaged Cluster (2 servers, shared storage, no disks) from HP will set you back about £8k then you have still go tto put disks in the thing.

Mike

*************************************

Remember - There is always another way..........