Server(s) configuration, suggestions?

[CCFAdmin]

Hello,

I administer a small office with about 50 users, we currently have one dual processor xeon server running w2k with XP workstations. We only have one server due to buget constraints which I'm in the process of changing. Recently I took over hosting our websites and e-mail, so obviously we need some more redundancy.

I'm looking for some thoughts and suggestion based on what others are doing. Right now I plan on moving to 4 servers:

*All servers will run 03 server and will be on a single domain. (company.local)

Server1: Dual xeon, raid5 with 2GB of DDR.
This will be the main DC and will run local DNS as well as print/file sharing. It will also run our proprietary software and may act as terminal server.

Server2: Single P4 with raid1 and 1GB of DDR.
This will be a secondary DC, run DHCP, backups and activity monitoring software.

Server3: Single P4 with raid1 and 2GB of DDR.
This will be the webserver that will host 3 sites as well run exchange 03. It will also run GFI mail security and mail essentials for virus/spam solutions. I also may intergrate ACT 6.

Server4: Single P3 850 with 768 SDRAM.
This will be a dedicated fax server with a Eicon fax board and GFI faxmaker (exchange intergrated).

Any thoughts... am I missing anything?

Thanks

 

[ashleym]

Well you could really do away with the second server and have the third server perform those roles. Otherwise it sounds nice if you can get the budget. Are you familiar at all with IIS6? Its quite different and more locked down then IIS5. Why do you necessarily want to go to 2003 server?

AM

 

[MidwestAdmin]

Just my $.02 but I would advise against enabling Terminal Services on the domain controller unless it is for remote admin only. Enabling TS to share apps on a domain controller requires the users to have Log on Locally rights...serious security risk.

 

[CCFAdmin]

Thanks for the feeback....

Re: the terminal server, if I did do this down the road I would make the second server the PDC and not have the termianl server run asa DC. Most likely just a member sever.

Although I'm not sure about have the web server running as a DC since it will be public. Sounds like a security risk.

Yes, I have used IIS6 which seems much better. The main reason for going ot 03 server is based on the improvements and my own testing. As long as it fits the budget and your software is compatible, I would have it any other way.

Does anyone have experiece with 03 server, good or bad?

Thanks

 

[sabrinaduncan]

My experience so far has been bad. I have been unexplained lock-ups while booting up. There also appears to be know why to install IPX/SPX. We want the server to be able to talk to Netware.

 

[hannahsh]

Sorry to here about your problems sabinaduncan, however I guess the lockups maybe hardware and not software cos its bulletproof! After all its only 2000 plus masses of addons and a tuned kernel.

Below is a summary of a test I am doing read it but dont take everything to heart - I am still trying to see what if anything I can break and what I need to do to fix it. I am lab testing it all, and its worked 100% for almost 2 months.

I also have a new project with about 60 users and a complete server solution to implement. Im going 2003/xp throughout including exchange (I suggested using the pop3/smtp mail server thats free with server 2003 and using a host ISP but thats not what the company want). Have used it for the last 2 month without any problems (120 evaluation copy) and the whole suite is simply a dream -I then plan to move a number of database solution finally to Windows from UNIX, wow a few more redundant UNIX boys, Yippee .

there are still a few things I need to sort out, but these are all NEW features that I want to exploit.

My only comment about your hardware - why single P4's when you can buy dual capable servers from compaq for just over a grand and the processors from ebuyer or similar are peanuts. There isnt a load of difference between the P3 1 gig and P4 2.4, forget benchmarks, in practice there very similar, its down the the drives for access time not sheer processor grunt.

I plan on buying 3 ML370's minimum spec and adding another processor and HDD from CCL, after all compaq want £292 for an 18Gig, CCL have them at £104 ansd ofcourse some extra memory, 2Gig each just for the sheer hell of it!!!

I might even buy a 4100 array off ebay and stick a load of disks in for the file server off the back of a box. I plan on having exchange and IIS on the webside and the other 2 working as terminal/file print and an apps server on the inside running everything raided 5 and shadowed.

For the apps server I will create a mirrored set of disks for DR that I can simply swop if the others corrupt, hot swop being used for hardware failure. Updating when required. Restore from tape available as a last resort.

For AD/DC I am simply going to use a good compaq professional workstation (dual P3 cpu's)and use IDE raid, the box will do nothing else. If it breaks I can use another one by swopping the disks over, again having a spare set in case they corrupt - thats one of my ideas anyway to keep the cost down

There are simply so many good/new features in 2003 server/exchange, server 2000 is boring and too damn slow. But then thats IT for you cos I would guess over 50% of the people that might read this wouldnt have the bottle. Some would have to take their 2003 MCSE before they dare even to open the box.

Have you tried it yet? get a copy and see for yourself!!!

Just to finish off, I am thinking of using compaq/intel dual 100 NIC cards for network load balance brindging, I got a load of ebay for £10 each, running through a dedicated switch for all the servers. That should be fast enough for only 60 users. Again something available in 2003 and it works, 2000 hated them.

God I love 2003, anyway enough waffle, back to my servers,