How would you do this? Replacing and/or adding server(s)

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnB
  • Start date Start date
J

JohnB

I work for a small company of about 75 users. (I started working here a
month ago) Their server hardware is old, all purchases about 7 years ago.
The email here is hosted by an outside IT service provider. We use RPC over
HTTPS.
There are 3 servers here 2 DCs that are both File/Print Servers. And 1
server that is running SQL 2000, with a POS system on there. Also, shared
user folders/files.
I realize this is not the ideal setup. That's what I'm trying to improve
on.

There is a serious lack of drive redundancy. The SQL server has ONE drive.
The 2 DC's each have mirrored system drives. But they both have one other
drive, for which there is no redundancy. That is where the user folders and
department data is.

I have convinced management that we need to purchase redundant drives right
away. And have them considering hosting our own Exchange server. But they
don't want to do that right now. Which is a good idea, because I am swamped
with other issues, having just started here. BTW... this is a one-man IT
department - me.

Here's the quandry They want to replace one of the old DCs with a new
server, instead of putting more money in someting 7 years old (the reduntant
drives).
I am leaning towards getting a server with enough horsepower to be the
Exchange server now. And make that the replacement DC. With the thinking
that this will save some $$$, in having to just get this one server, instead
of a mid-range box now, and the Exhange box later.

This is where planning really comes in - and why I'm looking for the ideas
of others. I've migrated shared folders and printers from one server to
another before. And it isn't fun. The sever name needs to stay the same,
to keep their shares from breaking. And, ideally the IP address will stay
the same, as invaribly there will be someone with a drive letter mapped via
the server's IP address.

What would you do?
I'm dreading the idea of doing the wholesale move of shared files and
printers to a new server, should I keep the existing DC/File Server?
Should I get the Exchange cabable server now, and make it the replacement DC
and file server?
There's a lot of options here. I could get the mid-range box now. And the
Exchange box later.
One key to all this is I'm just one person here, I have to do this as
efficiently as possible. I've got to come oup with some kind of plan that
is do-able, in man hours, for one person.

TIA
 
Reguardless of what horse power server you decide on you can set up the new
server with a temporary name and IP address. Use robocopy to copy over the
files and retain the security. something like robocopy x:\ y:\ /sec /r:2
/w:2. Then use Windows GUI to share the folders. Use Print migrator to
backup the printers on the old server and restore them to the new server.
See:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003...igrator3.1.mspx

I would keep the new server as a member server during this part.
Plan on about an hour of down time for the next part, maybe do this on a
Friday evening??/
Once you get all the printers and files to the new server, if the server to
be replaced is a DC, run DCpromo to remove AD. Once a member server rename
and change IP address. Give the new server the proper name and IP address
and promote to DC. If you have AD integrated DNS let it replicate. AD
integrated DNS makes the DNS part easy.
The longest task is to copy over the files but you can either do the
robocopy during the week and just do a refresh before starting or do the
robocopy after you make the new server a DC (if necessary) and cut the
robocopy script loose as the last step and let it run over the weekend.

You might consider stopping the shares on the existing server before running
the robocopy to make sure users are not in the files.


hth
DDS

"JohnB" wrote in message
news:e42VBGwOKHA.3192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I work for a small company of about 75 users. (I started working here a
>month ago) Their server hardware is old, all purchases about 7 years ago.
> The email here is hosted by an outside IT service provider. We use RPC
> over HTTPS.
> There are 3 servers here 2 DCs that are both File/Print Servers. And 1
> server that is running SQL 2000, with a POS system on there. Also, shared
> user folders/files.
> I realize this is not the ideal setup. That's what I'm trying to improve
> on.
>
> There is a serious lack of drive redundancy. The SQL server has ONE
> drive.
> The 2 DC's each have mirrored system drives. But they both have one other
> drive, for which there is no redundancy. That is where the user folders
> and department data is.
>
> I have convinced management that we need to purchase redundant drives
> right away. And have them considering hosting our own Exchange server.
> But they don't want to do that right now. Which is a good idea, because I
> am swamped with other issues, having just started here. BTW... this is a
> one-man IT department - me.
>
> Here's the quandry They want to replace one of the old DCs with a new
> server, instead of putting more money in someting 7 years old (the
> reduntant drives).
> I am leaning towards getting a server with enough horsepower to be the
> Exchange server now. And make that the replacement DC. With the thinking
> that this will save some $$$, in having to just get this one server,
> instead of a mid-range box now, and the Exhange box later.
>
> This is where planning really comes in - and why I'm looking for the ideas
> of others. I've migrated shared folders and printers from one server to
> another before. And it isn't fun. The sever name needs to stay the same,
> to keep their shares from breaking. And, ideally the IP address will stay
> the same, as invaribly there will be someone with a drive letter mapped
> via the server's IP address.
>
> What would you do?
> I'm dreading the idea of doing the wholesale move of shared files and
> printers to a new server, should I keep the existing DC/File Server?
> Should I get the Exchange cabable server now, and make it the replacement
> DC and file server?
> There's a lot of options here. I could get the mid-range box now. And
> the Exchange box later.
> One key to all this is I'm just one person here, I have to do this as
> efficiently as possible. I've got to come oup with some kind of plan that
> is do-able, in man hours, for one person.
>
> TIA
>
 
Unless you are running small business server, not a good idea to put
exchange on a DC
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa997407.aspx

Carl


"JohnB" wrote in message
news:e42VBGwOKHA.3192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I work for a small company of about 75 users. (I started working here a
>month ago) Their server hardware is old, all purchases about 7 years ago.
> The email here is hosted by an outside IT service provider. We use RPC
> over HTTPS.
> There are 3 servers here 2 DCs that are both File/Print Servers. And 1
> server that is running SQL 2000, with a POS system on there. Also, shared
> user folders/files.
> I realize this is not the ideal setup. That's what I'm trying to improve
> on.
>
> There is a serious lack of drive redundancy. The SQL server has ONE
> drive.
> The 2 DC's each have mirrored system drives. But they both have one other
> drive, for which there is no redundancy. That is where the user folders
> and department data is.
>
> I have convinced management that we need to purchase redundant drives
> right away. And have them considering hosting our own Exchange server.
> But they don't want to do that right now. Which is a good idea, because I
> am swamped with other issues, having just started here. BTW... this is a
> one-man IT department - me.
>
> Here's the quandry They want to replace one of the old DCs with a new
> server, instead of putting more money in someting 7 years old (the
> reduntant drives).
> I am leaning towards getting a server with enough horsepower to be the
> Exchange server now. And make that the replacement DC. With the thinking
> that this will save some $$$, in having to just get this one server,
> instead of a mid-range box now, and the Exhange box later.
>
> This is where planning really comes in - and why I'm looking for the ideas
> of others. I've migrated shared folders and printers from one server to
> another before. And it isn't fun. The sever name needs to stay the same,
> to keep their shares from breaking. And, ideally the IP address will stay
> the same, as invaribly there will be someone with a drive letter mapped
> via the server's IP address.
>
> What would you do?
> I'm dreading the idea of doing the wholesale move of shared files and
> printers to a new server, should I keep the existing DC/File Server?
> Should I get the Exchange cabable server now, and make it the replacement
> DC and file server?
> There's a lot of options here. I could get the mid-range box now. And
> the Exchange box later.
> One key to all this is I'm just one person here, I have to do this as
> efficiently as possible. I've got to come oup with some kind of plan that
> is do-able, in man hours, for one person.
>
> TIA
>
 
Thanks. That advice will make things easier.


"Danny Sanders" wrote in message
news:%23attjdwOKHA.508@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Reguardless of what horse power server you decide on you can set up the
> new server with a temporary name and IP address. Use robocopy to copy over
> the files and retain the security. something like robocopy x: y: /sec
> /r:2 /w:2. Then use Windows GUI to share the folders. Use Print migrator
> to backup the printers on the old server and restore them to the new
> server.
> See:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003...igrator3.1.mspx
>
> I would keep the new server as a member server during this part.
> Plan on about an hour of down time for the next part, maybe do this on a
> Friday evening??/
> Once you get all the printers and files to the new server, if the server
> to be replaced is a DC, run DCpromo to remove AD. Once a member server
> rename and change IP address. Give the new server the proper name and IP
> address and promote to DC. If you have AD integrated DNS let it replicate.
> AD integrated DNS makes the DNS part easy.
> The longest task is to copy over the files but you can either do the
> robocopy during the week and just do a refresh before starting or do the
> robocopy after you make the new server a DC (if necessary) and cut the
> robocopy script loose as the last step and let it run over the weekend.
>
> You might consider stopping the shares on the existing server before
> running the robocopy to make sure users are not in the files.
>
>
> hth
> DDS
>
> "JohnB" wrote in message
> news:e42VBGwOKHA.3192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I work for a small company of about 75 users. (I started working here a
>>month ago) Their server hardware is old, all purchases about 7 years ago.
>> The email here is hosted by an outside IT service provider. We use RPC
>> over HTTPS.
>> There are 3 servers here 2 DCs that are both File/Print Servers. And 1
>> server that is running SQL 2000, with a POS system on there. Also,
>> shared user folders/files.
>> I realize this is not the ideal setup. That's what I'm trying to improve
>> on.
>>
>> There is a serious lack of drive redundancy. The SQL server has ONE
>> drive.
>> The 2 DC's each have mirrored system drives. But they both have one
>> other drive, for which there is no redundancy. That is where the user
>> folders and department data is.
>>
>> I have convinced management that we need to purchase redundant drives
>> right away. And have them considering hosting our own Exchange server.
>> But they don't want to do that right now. Which is a good idea, because
>> I am swamped with other issues, having just started here. BTW... this is
>> a one-man IT department - me.
>>
>> Here's the quandry They want to replace one of the old DCs with a new
>> server, instead of putting more money in someting 7 years old (the
>> reduntant drives).
>> I am leaning towards getting a server with enough horsepower to be the
>> Exchange server now. And make that the replacement DC. With the
>> thinking that this will save some $$$, in having to just get this one
>> server, instead of a mid-range box now, and the Exhange box later.
>>
>> This is where planning really comes in - and why I'm looking for the
>> ideas of others. I've migrated shared folders and printers from one
>> server to another before. And it isn't fun. The sever name needs to
>> stay the same, to keep their shares from breaking. And, ideally the IP
>> address will stay the same, as invaribly there will be someone with a
>> drive letter mapped via the server's IP address.
>>
>> What would you do?
>> I'm dreading the idea of doing the wholesale move of shared files and
>> printers to a new server, should I keep the existing DC/File Server?
>> Should I get the Exchange cabable server now, and make it the replacement
>> DC and file server?
>> There's a lot of options here. I could get the mid-range box now. And
>> the Exchange box later.
>> One key to all this is I'm just one person here, I have to do this as
>> efficiently as possible. I've got to come oup with some kind of plan
>> that is do-able, in man hours, for one person.
>>
>> TIA
>>
>
>
 
True. I forgot about that.

"MSNews" wrote in message
news:umNm0tyOKHA.3724@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Unless you are running small business server, not a good idea to put
> exchange on a DC
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa997407.aspx
>
> Carl
>
>
> "JohnB" wrote in message
> news:e42VBGwOKHA.3192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I work for a small company of about 75 users. (I started working here a
>>month ago) Their server hardware is old, all purchases about 7 years ago.
>> The email here is hosted by an outside IT service provider. We use RPC
>> over HTTPS.
>> There are 3 servers here 2 DCs that are both File/Print Servers. And 1
>> server that is running SQL 2000, with a POS system on there. Also,
>> shared user folders/files.
>> I realize this is not the ideal setup. That's what I'm trying to improve
>> on.
>>
>> There is a serious lack of drive redundancy. The SQL server has ONE
>> drive.
>> The 2 DC's each have mirrored system drives. But they both have one
>> other drive, for which there is no redundancy. That is where the user
>> folders and department data is.
>>
>> I have convinced management that we need to purchase redundant drives
>> right away. And have them considering hosting our own Exchange server.
>> But they don't want to do that right now. Which is a good idea, because
>> I am swamped with other issues, having just started here. BTW... this is
>> a one-man IT department - me.
>>
>> Here's the quandry They want to replace one of the old DCs with a new
>> server, instead of putting more money in someting 7 years old (the
>> reduntant drives).
>> I am leaning towards getting a server with enough horsepower to be the
>> Exchange server now. And make that the replacement DC. With the
>> thinking that this will save some $$$, in having to just get this one
>> server, instead of a mid-range box now, and the Exhange box later.
>>
>> This is where planning really comes in - and why I'm looking for the
>> ideas of others. I've migrated shared folders and printers from one
>> server to another before. And it isn't fun. The sever name needs to
>> stay the same, to keep their shares from breaking. And, ideally the IP
>> address will stay the same, as invaribly there will be someone with a
>> drive letter mapped via the server's IP address.
>>
>> What would you do?
>> I'm dreading the idea of doing the wholesale move of shared files and
>> printers to a new server, should I keep the existing DC/File Server?
>> Should I get the Exchange cabable server now, and make it the replacement
>> DC and file server?
>> There's a lot of options here. I could get the mid-range box now. And
>> the Exchange box later.
>> One key to all this is I'm just one person here, I have to do this as
>> efficiently as possible. I've got to come oup with some kind of plan
>> that is do-able, in man hours, for one person.
>>
>> TIA
>>
>
>
 
Danny pretty much nailed it for you. One thing I might add though, is that
if you are getting a new server you might as well plan for the future now.
Is the company, or the amount of data it houses, going to grow much? I will
tell you that if you increase storage by quite a bit and do not implement
quotas for whatever reason, the amount of data on disk will balloon. Are
there remote sites or remote DR site?

I would think about DFS in Windows 2003 R2. That would mean some work for
you now, but would save headaches later. It mitigates the need to worry
about servername that is referenced in scripts or GPOs. It will enable you
to synch to another server - to a remote server for DR or to host a remote
office's files local to them, but still back them up in a central location,
or to a local server for when your current new one is old and running out of
space. DFS offers several good features, but you do have to go through
planning and implementation. It may or may not be worth it for you.

hth,
Brooke



"JohnB" wrote in message
news:%23OfSlj5OKHA.4580@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Thanks. That advice will make things easier.
>
>
> "Danny Sanders" wrote in message
> news:%23attjdwOKHA.508@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Reguardless of what horse power server you decide on you can set up the
>> new server with a temporary name and IP address. Use robocopy to copy
>> over the files and retain the security. something like robocopy x: y:
>> /sec /r:2 /w:2. Then use Windows GUI to share the folders. Use Print
>> migrator to backup the printers on the old server and restore them to the
>> new server.
>> See:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003...igrator3.1.mspx
>>
>> I would keep the new server as a member server during this part.
>> Plan on about an hour of down time for the next part, maybe do this on a
>> Friday evening??/
>> Once you get all the printers and files to the new server, if the server
>> to be replaced is a DC, run DCpromo to remove AD. Once a member server
>> rename and change IP address. Give the new server the proper name and IP
>> address and promote to DC. If you have AD integrated DNS let it
>> replicate. AD integrated DNS makes the DNS part easy.
>> The longest task is to copy over the files but you can either do the
>> robocopy during the week and just do a refresh before starting or do the
>> robocopy after you make the new server a DC (if necessary) and cut the
>> robocopy script loose as the last step and let it run over the weekend.
>>
>> You might consider stopping the shares on the existing server before
>> running the robocopy to make sure users are not in the files.
>>
>>
>> hth
>> DDS
>>
>> "JohnB" wrote in message
>> news:e42VBGwOKHA.3192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>I work for a small company of about 75 users. (I started working here a
>>>month ago) Their server hardware is old, all purchases about 7 years
>>>ago.
>>> The email here is hosted by an outside IT service provider. We use RPC
>>> over HTTPS.
>>> There are 3 servers here 2 DCs that are both File/Print Servers. And 1
>>> server that is running SQL 2000, with a POS system on there. Also,
>>> shared user folders/files.
>>> I realize this is not the ideal setup. That's what I'm trying to
>>> improve on.
>>>
>>> There is a serious lack of drive redundancy. The SQL server has ONE
>>> drive.
>>> The 2 DC's each have mirrored system drives. But they both have one
>>> other drive, for which there is no redundancy. That is where the user
>>> folders and department data is.
>>>
>>> I have convinced management that we need to purchase redundant drives
>>> right away. And have them considering hosting our own Exchange server.
>>> But they don't want to do that right now. Which is a good idea, because
>>> I am swamped with other issues, having just started here. BTW... this
>>> is a one-man IT department - me.
>>>
>>> Here's the quandry They want to replace one of the old DCs with a new
>>> server, instead of putting more money in someting 7 years old (the
>>> reduntant drives).
>>> I am leaning towards getting a server with enough horsepower to be the
>>> Exchange server now. And make that the replacement DC. With the
>>> thinking that this will save some $$$, in having to just get this one
>>> server, instead of a mid-range box now, and the Exhange box later.
>>>
>>> This is where planning really comes in - and why I'm looking for the
>>> ideas of others. I've migrated shared folders and printers from one
>>> server to another before. And it isn't fun. The sever name needs to
>>> stay the same, to keep their shares from breaking. And, ideally the IP
>>> address will stay the same, as invaribly there will be someone with a
>>> drive letter mapped via the server's IP address.
>>>
>>> What would you do?
>>> I'm dreading the idea of doing the wholesale move of shared files and
>>> printers to a new server, should I keep the existing DC/File Server?
>>> Should I get the Exchange cabable server now, and make it the
>>> replacement DC and file server?
>>> There's a lot of options here. I could get the mid-range box now. And
>>> the Exchange box later.
>>> One key to all this is I'm just one person here, I have to do this as
>>> efficiently as possible. I've got to come oup with some kind of plan
>>> that is do-able, in man hours, for one person.
>>>
>>> TIA
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
Yes he did.
No, I don't see a lot of growth.
This is more of a "improve what we have" situation. Apparently they haven't
had an IT person that they felt confident in for quite some time.
Therefore, the servers haven't been upgraded or replaced in some time.

I wish I knew more about server virtulization. Is it expensive?
I'd like to put more services on one high powered box. They don't have a
lot of room for many servers.

Or, I guess buying a server with Small Business Server might be smart. I
don't know what the recommended max number of users is. And how much
trouble it is to go from the existing 2 DC's, one 2000 and one 2003.
Sorry for the rambling thoughts.




"Brooke Justice" wrote in message
news:uQQKEN6OKHA.4692@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Danny pretty much nailed it for you. One thing I might add though, is that
> if you are getting a new server you might as well plan for the future now.
> Is the company, or the amount of data it houses, going to grow much? I
> will tell you that if you increase storage by quite a bit and do not
> implement quotas for whatever reason, the amount of data on disk will
> balloon. Are there remote sites or remote DR site?
>
> I would think about DFS in Windows 2003 R2. That would mean some work for
> you now, but would save headaches later. It mitigates the need to worry
> about servername that is referenced in scripts or GPOs. It will enable you
> to synch to another server - to a remote server for DR or to host a remote
> office's files local to them, but still back them up in a central
> location, or to a local server for when your current new one is old and
> running out of space. DFS offers several good features, but you do have to
> go through planning and implementation. It may or may not be worth it for
> you.
>
> hth,
> Brooke
>
>
>
> "JohnB" wrote in message
> news:%23OfSlj5OKHA.4580@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. That advice will make things easier.
>>
>>
>> "Danny Sanders" wrote in message
>> news:%23attjdwOKHA.508@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Reguardless of what horse power server you decide on you can set up the
>>> new server with a temporary name and IP address. Use robocopy to copy
>>> over the files and retain the security. something like robocopy x: y:
>>> /sec /r:2 /w:2. Then use Windows GUI to share the folders. Use Print
>>> migrator to backup the printers on the old server and restore them to
>>> the new server.
>>> See:
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003...igrator3.1.mspx
>>>
>>> I would keep the new server as a member server during this part.
>>> Plan on about an hour of down time for the next part, maybe do this on a
>>> Friday evening??/
>>> Once you get all the printers and files to the new server, if the server
>>> to be replaced is a DC, run DCpromo to remove AD. Once a member server
>>> rename and change IP address. Give the new server the proper name and IP
>>> address and promote to DC. If you have AD integrated DNS let it
>>> replicate. AD integrated DNS makes the DNS part easy.
>>> The longest task is to copy over the files but you can either do the
>>> robocopy during the week and just do a refresh before starting or do the
>>> robocopy after you make the new server a DC (if necessary) and cut the
>>> robocopy script loose as the last step and let it run over the weekend.
>>>
>>> You might consider stopping the shares on the existing server before
>>> running the robocopy to make sure users are not in the files.
>>>
>>>
>>> hth
>>> DDS
>>>
>>> "JohnB" wrote in message
>>> news:e42VBGwOKHA.3192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>I work for a small company of about 75 users. (I started working here a
>>>>month ago) Their server hardware is old, all purchases about 7 years
>>>>ago.
>>>> The email here is hosted by an outside IT service provider. We use RPC
>>>> over HTTPS.
>>>> There are 3 servers here 2 DCs that are both File/Print Servers. And
>>>> 1 server that is running SQL 2000, with a POS system on there. Also,
>>>> shared user folders/files.
>>>> I realize this is not the ideal setup. That's what I'm trying to
>>>> improve on.
>>>>
>>>> There is a serious lack of drive redundancy. The SQL server has ONE
>>>> drive.
>>>> The 2 DC's each have mirrored system drives. But they both have one
>>>> other drive, for which there is no redundancy. That is where the user
>>>> folders and department data is.
>>>>
>>>> I have convinced management that we need to purchase redundant drives
>>>> right away. And have them considering hosting our own Exchange server.
>>>> But they don't want to do that right now. Which is a good idea,
>>>> because I am swamped with other issues, having just started here.
>>>> BTW... this is a one-man IT department - me.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the quandry They want to replace one of the old DCs with a new
>>>> server, instead of putting more money in someting 7 years old (the
>>>> reduntant drives).
>>>> I am leaning towards getting a server with enough horsepower to be the
>>>> Exchange server now. And make that the replacement DC. With the
>>>> thinking that this will save some $$$, in having to just get this one
>>>> server, instead of a mid-range box now, and the Exhange box later.
>>>>
>>>> This is where planning really comes in - and why I'm looking for the
>>>> ideas of others. I've migrated shared folders and printers from one
>>>> server to another before. And it isn't fun. The sever name needs to
>>>> stay the same, to keep their shares from breaking. And, ideally the IP
>>>> address will stay the same, as invaribly there will be someone with a
>>>> drive letter mapped via the server's IP address.
>>>>
>>>> What would you do?
>>>> I'm dreading the idea of doing the wholesale move of shared files and
>>>> printers to a new server, should I keep the existing DC/File Server?
>>>> Should I get the Exchange cabable server now, and make it the
>>>> replacement DC and file server?
>>>> There's a lot of options here. I could get the mid-range box now. And
>>>> the Exchange box later.
>>>> One key to all this is I'm just one person here, I have to do this as
>>>> efficiently as possible. I've got to come oup with some kind of plan
>>>> that is do-able, in man hours, for one person.
>>>>
>>>> TIA
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
> I wish I knew more about server virtulization. Is it expensive?
> I'd like to put more services on one high powered box. They don't have a
> lot of room for many servers.
>


I would look into MS Virtual server. If you buy a really beefy machine say,
quad core, 16 GB RAM, maybe 32 and put Win 2k3 Enterprise edition on it, the
Enterprise license will allow you to run 4 Virtual servers on the "free"
Virtual server software and the license for the four Virtual servers are
covered under the Win 2k3 Enterprise license

Here is a place to start. I would take a close look at MS Virtual server
before making the final decision.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/


hth
DDS


"JohnB" wrote in message
news:OeDIXf7OKHA.5108@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Yes he did.
> No, I don't see a lot of growth.
> This is more of a "improve what we have" situation. Apparently they
> haven't had an IT person that they felt confident in for quite some time.
> Therefore, the servers haven't been upgraded or replaced in some time.
>
> I wish I knew more about server virtulization. Is it expensive?
> I'd like to put more services on one high powered box. They don't have a
> lot of room for many servers.
>
> Or, I guess buying a server with Small Business Server might be smart. I
> don't know what the recommended max number of users is. And how much
> trouble it is to go from the existing 2 DC's, one 2000 and one 2003.
> Sorry for the rambling thoughts.
>
>
>
>
> "Brooke Justice" wrote in message
> news:uQQKEN6OKHA.4692@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Danny pretty much nailed it for you. One thing I might add though, is
>> that if you are getting a new server you might as well plan for the
>> future now. Is the company, or the amount of data it houses, going to
>> grow much? I will tell you that if you increase storage by quite a bit
>> and do not implement quotas for whatever reason, the amount of data on
>> disk will balloon. Are there remote sites or remote DR site?
>>
>> I would think about DFS in Windows 2003 R2. That would mean some work for
>> you now, but would save headaches later. It mitigates the need to worry
>> about servername that is referenced in scripts or GPOs. It will enable
>> you to synch to another server - to a remote server for DR or to host a
>> remote office's files local to them, but still back them up in a central
>> location, or to a local server for when your current new one is old and
>> running out of space. DFS offers several good features, but you do have
>> to go through planning and implementation. It may or may not be worth it
>> for you.
>>
>> hth,
>> Brooke
>>
>>
>>
>> "JohnB" wrote in message
>> news:%23OfSlj5OKHA.4580@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Thanks. That advice will make things easier.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Danny Sanders" wrote in message
>>> news:%23attjdwOKHA.508@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> Reguardless of what horse power server you decide on you can set up the
>>>> new server with a temporary name and IP address. Use robocopy to copy
>>>> over the files and retain the security. something like robocopy x: y:
>>>> /sec /r:2 /w:2. Then use Windows GUI to share the folders. Use Print
>>>> migrator to backup the printers on the old server and restore them to
>>>> the new server.
>>>> See:
>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003...igrator3.1.mspx
>>>>
>>>> I would keep the new server as a member server during this part.
>>>> Plan on about an hour of down time for the next part, maybe do this on
>>>> a Friday evening??/
>>>> Once you get all the printers and files to the new server, if the
>>>> server to be replaced is a DC, run DCpromo to remove AD. Once a member
>>>> server rename and change IP address. Give the new server the proper
>>>> name and IP address and promote to DC. If you have AD integrated DNS
>>>> let it replicate. AD integrated DNS makes the DNS part easy.
>>>> The longest task is to copy over the files but you can either do the
>>>> robocopy during the week and just do a refresh before starting or do
>>>> the robocopy after you make the new server a DC (if necessary) and cut
>>>> the robocopy script loose as the last step and let it run over the
>>>> weekend.
>>>>
>>>> You might consider stopping the shares on the existing server before
>>>> running the robocopy to make sure users are not in the files.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> hth
>>>> DDS
>>>>
>>>> "JohnB" wrote in message
>>>> news:e42VBGwOKHA.3192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>I work for a small company of about 75 users. (I started working here a
>>>>>month ago) Their server hardware is old, all purchases about 7 years
>>>>>ago.
>>>>> The email here is hosted by an outside IT service provider. We use
>>>>> RPC over HTTPS.
>>>>> There are 3 servers here 2 DCs that are both File/Print Servers. And
>>>>> 1 server that is running SQL 2000, with a POS system on there. Also,
>>>>> shared user folders/files.
>>>>> I realize this is not the ideal setup. That's what I'm trying to
>>>>> improve on.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a serious lack of drive redundancy. The SQL server has ONE
>>>>> drive.
>>>>> The 2 DC's each have mirrored system drives. But they both have one
>>>>> other drive, for which there is no redundancy. That is where the user
>>>>> folders and department data is.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have convinced management that we need to purchase redundant drives
>>>>> right away. And have them considering hosting our own Exchange
>>>>> server. But they don't want to do that right now. Which is a good
>>>>> idea, because I am swamped with other issues, having just started
>>>>> here. BTW... this is a one-man IT department - me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the quandry They want to replace one of the old DCs with a
>>>>> new server, instead of putting more money in someting 7 years old (the
>>>>> reduntant drives).
>>>>> I am leaning towards getting a server with enough horsepower to be the
>>>>> Exchange server now. And make that the replacement DC. With the
>>>>> thinking that this will save some $$$, in having to just get this one
>>>>> server, instead of a mid-range box now, and the Exhange box later.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is where planning really comes in - and why I'm looking for the
>>>>> ideas of others. I've migrated shared folders and printers from one
>>>>> server to another before. And it isn't fun. The sever name needs to
>>>>> stay the same, to keep their shares from breaking. And, ideally the
>>>>> IP address will stay the same, as invaribly there will be someone with
>>>>> a drive letter mapped via the server's IP address.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would you do?
>>>>> I'm dreading the idea of doing the wholesale move of shared files and
>>>>> printers to a new server, should I keep the existing DC/File Server?
>>>>> Should I get the Exchange cabable server now, and make it the
>>>>> replacement DC and file server?
>>>>> There's a lot of options here. I could get the mid-range box now.
>>>>> And the Exchange box later.
>>>>> One key to all this is I'm just one person here, I have to do this
>>>>> as efficiently as possible. I've got to come oup with some kind of
>>>>> plan that is do-able, in man hours, for one person.
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
Hardware for a DC does not need to be heavy duty. A $300 server would do fine if
it just does DC and maybe DHCP and DNS.

Consider the cost of a server in terms of hours of downtime cost to the company.
Say the server + OS is $2000. If the server is down and users are unable to work
then the company starts to loose productivity. It may be a while before this
kicks in, people can do other work for a while. the cost of the server is
divided by 75 people so one hour of zero production is the cost of the whole
server.

Also having more than one server means that only part of the system is down so
people can continue working. The may loose email or the file system but not both
if you split things up on different servers.


On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:21:36 -0400, "JohnB" wrote:

>I work for a small company of about 75 users. (I started working here a
>month ago) Their server hardware is old, all purchases about 7 years ago.
>The email here is hosted by an outside IT service provider. We use RPC over
>HTTPS.
>There are 3 servers here 2 DCs that are both File/Print Servers. And 1
>server that is running SQL 2000, with a POS system on there. Also, shared
>user folders/files.
>I realize this is not the ideal setup. That's what I'm trying to improve
>on.
>
>There is a serious lack of drive redundancy. The SQL server has ONE drive.
>The 2 DC's each have mirrored system drives. But they both have one other
>drive, for which there is no redundancy. That is where the user folders and
>department data is.
>
>I have convinced management that we need to purchase redundant drives right
>away. And have them considering hosting our own Exchange server. But they
>don't want to do that right now. Which is a good idea, because I am swamped
>with other issues, having just started here. BTW... this is a one-man IT
>department - me.
>
>Here's the quandry They want to replace one of the old DCs with a new
>server, instead of putting more money in someting 7 years old (the reduntant
>drives).
>I am leaning towards getting a server with enough horsepower to be the
>Exchange server now. And make that the replacement DC. With the thinking
>that this will save some $$$, in having to just get this one server, instead
>of a mid-range box now, and the Exhange box later.
>
>This is where planning really comes in - and why I'm looking for the ideas
>of others. I've migrated shared folders and printers from one server to
>another before. And it isn't fun. The sever name needs to stay the same,
>to keep their shares from breaking. And, ideally the IP address will stay
>the same, as invaribly there will be someone with a drive letter mapped via
>the server's IP address.
>
>What would you do?
>I'm dreading the idea of doing the wholesale move of shared files and
>printers to a new server, should I keep the existing DC/File Server?
>Should I get the Exchange cabable server now, and make it the replacement DC
>and file server?
>There's a lot of options here. I could get the mid-range box now. And the
>Exchange box later.
>One key to all this is I'm just one person here, I have to do this as
>efficiently as possible. I've got to come oup with some kind of plan that
>is do-able, in man hours, for one person.
>
>TIA
>
--
Dave Mills
There are 10 types of people, those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Back
Top