Windows 2003 DC on SQL Server or Exchange Server?

[iggy0069]

I am about to migrate my network to a native Win2K3 and Exchange 2k3 environment. My IT Director and I have been wrestling with which server would make the better secondary DC, a SQL Server serving 5 clients and supporting a Great Plains 7.5 installation, or our new Exchange Server which will house about 30 mailboxes and 10 public folders. Currently our Exchange 2000 Server is a DC and I've seen no issues with that. Our Great Plains consultant says turning that server into a DC is not a good idea, and I agree, as I've never seen the effects of having a SQL Server also act as a DC. The hardware on both machines in identical except for the drive configurations. They are both dual-Xeon 2.8Ghz with 2GB RAM. I would like some suggestions on what others feel on this scenario. Exchange or SQL as a DC?

 

[Niksen]

If yo with 30 mailboxes mean that you have 30 users, it wont do much difference where you put the sec. DC.

the DC-role load will be almost nothing.

MVH nicolai

 

[iggy0069]

What about the Global Catalog Server? The GC server must be a DC, and I saw a suggestion for putting the GC on the Exchange Server. I guess in this setup it wouldn't matter. My biggest concern is the SQL Server.

 

[tryssenaar]

We have the exact same setup here. Our Fileserver is acting as the first DC (as much as that means in Active Directory) and our Exchange server (with 15 users) as the second DC. We also have a SQL server running Solomon (similar to Great Plains).

If your Exchange server were to grow, it would be best to separate it off to it's own server, and leave that secondary DC for RAS and RADIUS and all that other good stuff.

Ryan