Server Redundancy - Seperating Roles

[super20g]

Currently I have a small business LAN consisting of 1 main server, 1 desktop as a webserver, 1 Terastation, 25 client boxes, 5 laptops, and a shared broadband connection. We use pop account from a hosting provider.

All clients are XP Pro and servers are Server 2003.

The 'main server' is a domain controller, dns server, dhcp server, print server, file server, backup server, database server for multiple databases, etc...

Working on this machine is a nightmare 1. because I cant take it down durring business hours, 2. It is configured for dozens of tasks, 3. It's getting some age on it, 4. If the thing breaks, I am screwed...

I would like to diversify this machines roles onto 3-4 new servers. Here is what I have planned.

Server 1 (HP-DL360, RAID 1, Server 2003 Standard) - Domain Controller, DNS Server, DHCP Server
Server 2 (HP-DL360, RAID 1, SBS 2003) - Web Server, Mail Server (Pop Connector)
Server 3 (HP-DL380, RAID 5, Server 2003 Standard) - Database Server
Server 4 (HP-ML370, RAID 5, Server 2003 Standard [Our Current Main Server]) - File Server, Print Server
Server 5 (TeraStation), RAID 5) [Our Current Backup Server]

Does that sound like a good way to group these roles for cost savings, but still getting the roles spread out a bit better?

[ErikD]

It sounds like a plan. Only problem is SBS needs to be the domain controller. You could add in the other one as a DC, DHCP, DNS as planned without any problem. Just keep in mind that the SBS will always want to be boss, and it will limit you to 75 seats.

[YeOldeStonecat]

Decent plan...although SBS will want to have you combining roles 1 and 2. Exception being..web server...keep that on a separate box, in a different firewalled zone.

I'm doing a similar thing at a large client...they were running on 2 servers before, DC/infrastructure, and database. Spreading out those services across several servers now as they grow...I introduced SBS 2K3 r2 to their existing 2K3 domain....did an AD rename to bring them to .local convention, replaced their POP3 Internet mail with Exchange. Made their prior DC a secondary DC, kept it a file and print sharing. Added another 1U server to house their 2x accounting applications...Blackbaud and MAS90, and put their antivirus management console on that one. All new servers I've been adding are without local hard drives, I installed an HP fiber SAN which all the servers share for central storage. Added another 1U server for Terminal Server. Will be adding 2x new services soon...another SQL server for their a file cabinet storage solution they're looking at (LaserFiche), and a new firewall...Untangle. Instead of purchasing new physical servers....I'm going to virtualize them soon....spread out the role of several servers in just 3x 1U servers....and retiring 2x of the current Dell PowerEdge servers.

As you grow...you begin to realize having all your eggs in one basket isn't good. Spreading out the roles across "One server per primary role" is a good idea. With 1U servers, SAN storage, and VMWare....this becomes very affordable and easy.

[super20g]

Dang, I was hoping SBS wouldn’t give me those authoritative problems I don’t really like the idea of my mail server being my domain controller.

[YeOldeStonecat]

Dang, I was hoping SBS wouldn’t give me those authoritative problems I don’t really like the idea of my mail server being my domain controller.

That's the usual convention with larger networks...but SBS is specially packaged for this.

[super20g]

Do you advise based on my proposed role seperation that I should use s2k3 standard and pay a little extra rather than trying to add sbs to an existing domain?

[ErikD]

You should make the plan fit the needs, not the other way around. The decision to use SBS or not needs to be made on what requirements you are looking to fill. SBS does have some limitations (75 seats, no trusts, no child domains, etc.), if any of them apply to your situation, or might in the near future, go for the full versions. If they are not likely to have any impact on you and your business then use SBS.

As YOSC mentioned SBS is a special case product. It is designed to run all on one box and be the only server in the network. Of course as you grow past a few users adding additional servers and spreading the roles across them is a good practice. Better to have your SQL server down and not be able to work on your database than to have everything down.