SBS 2011 or Windows Server 2008?

[Paul Rodgers]

I work full time for a concrete company and an outside tech suggested that we go with SBS to implement exchange for our company email. Initially after running the trial I thought it was a good idea, but now I'm beginning to have doubts. I think an outside opinion would be great.

We currently have a Server 2003 network with a DC/File/Print Server, Terminal Server, Backup DC, Database Server (Running Oracle), and in the near future an Application Server. There are about 15-20 computers at the main office. Then there is one computer connecting via VPN to the Terminal Server from three remote locations.

If we implement SBS we would have to run it on its own domain. This would not be a major deal-breaker, but SBS does not have the ability to trust another domain. It was suggested that we restructure our network around SBS to overcome this. The 75 max users is also an area for concern. This limits future growth. SBS 2011 has a hard minimum of 4 GB for RAM, stated minimum of 8, and recommended amount of 10!

While it would cost more, I'm thinking a Server 2008 machine with Exchange 2010 might be the smarter way to go. We could utilize out existing Backup DC for the purpose thus retaining the redundancy that we currently have and we would have AD integration for Exchange.

I know I can get SBS 2008 instead of SBS 2011, but this company was using a custom built Server 2000 machine as their DC/File Server until 2007 when they needed a newer machine to run an inventory program. I believe they still had a Win 98 machine up until then as well.

 

[Frank]

Why don't you want the SBS server in the same domain as your original network?

 

[Paul Rodgers]

Why don't you want the SBS server in the same domain as your original network?

Because SBS must be the Primary DC on the network.

 

[Frank]

Because SBS must be the Primary DC on the network.

So, you just don't want to transfer the FSMO roles, global catalog, etc? Is there a particular reason you don't want to do this?

I'm just curious. If I were to install an SBS server into an existing domain, I wouldn't have a problem with making it the primary DC.

 

[Paul Rodgers]

So, you just don't want to transfer the FSMO roles, global catalog, etc? Is there a particular reason you don't want to do this?

I'm just curious. If I were to install an SBS server into an existing domain, I wouldn't have a problem with making it the primary DC.

I never gave much thought to doing that. My main concern though is whether or not we are too big for SBS to be a good idea.

 

[Frank]

We currently have a Server 2003 network with a DC/File/Print Server, Terminal Server, Backup DC, Database Server (Running Oracle), and in the near future an Application Server. There are about 15-20 computers at the main office. Then there is one computer connecting via VPN to the Terminal Server from three remote locations.

If we implement SBS we would have to run it on its own domain. This would not be a major deal-breaker, but SBS does not have the ability to trust another domain. It was suggested that we restructure our network around SBS to overcome this. The 75 max users is also an area for concern. This limits future growth. SBS 2011 has a hard minimum of 4 GB for RAM, stated minimum of 8, and recommended amount of 10!

While it would cost more, I'm thinking a Server 2008 machine with Exchange 2010 might be the smarter way to go. We could utilize out existing Backup DC for the purpose thus retaining the redundancy that we currently have and we would have AD integration for Exchange.

The only area for concern you really need to put some thought into is the 75 user limit, as SBS 2011 can be fully functional in your current domain, you can still use the other servers, and Exchange will intergrate with AD.

You stated there are currently 15-20 + 3 (remote) computers. I would try to figure out how quickly the company would approach 50 users. I prefer SBS for networks that are the size you described, but if there is a serious possibility of it growing to 50+ users in the near future, I'd put some more thought into Windows Server 2008 R2 w/Exchange 2010.

 

[Paul Rodgers]

The only area for concern you really need to put some thought into is the 75 user limit, as SBS 2011 can be fully functional in your current domain, you can still use the other servers, and Exchange will intergrate with AD.

You stated there are currently 15-20 + 3 (remote) computers. I would try to figure out how quickly the company would approach 50 users. I prefer SBS for networks that are the size you described, but if there is a serious possibility of it growing to 50+ users in the near future, I'd put some more thought into Windows Server 2008 R2 w/Exchange 2010.

This is more of a concern based on how the company utilizes computers. They will run the machine until it dies or it is no longer compatible with their software. I don't want them to run into trouble when I eventually leave.

I suppose the next thing I should look at is how the system counts users.

 

[Frank]

I suppose the next thing I should look at is how the system counts users.

Let us know what you find out.

I haven't looked into it much myself. But from what I remember, according to the licensing agreement, the max is 75 CALs, and you're supposed to follow the licensing and stay within that limit. But I'm sure you can add more users/computers to AD, and as long as the concurent connections do not exceed 75, you should be fine.

 

[MobileTechie]

I don't really see the advantage of using SBS to add Exchange to the network givin what you've got in place already. It would seem a rather painful way of going about it, rather than just adding Exchange on a suitable platform.

 

[Paul Rodgers]

I don't really see the advantage of using SBS to add Exchange to the network givin what you've got in place already. It would seem a rather painful way of going about it, rather than just adding Exchange on a suitable platform.

Exactly how I feel. It just seems like too much work for a possibility of becoming obsolete sooner. The only problem is that from how I understand the licensing requirements we would have to buy Server 2008, buy the required licenses, buy Exchange, buy the required licenses. For us with 20 CALs for both it could cost around $4,200. SBS 2011 + the necessary CALs is around $2,000. I know that CALs are on an honor based system now for these products, but I also have to do the ethical thing.

 

[pcman2010]

I had a client who had SBS and when the server died (hard-drive) failure I encouraged them to upgrade to Server 2008 R2 because it was scalable and SBS 2003 was reaching end of life. That being said I didn't realize the R2 was only 64 bit and had a few complications along the way but was able to get the programmers to re-code the 32 bit app. Along with the anti-virus application. My client doesn't use Exchange and it was only taking bandwidth on the SBS server. Have you looked in co-hosted Exchange with MS? It could be easier and less headache.

Let us know how it goes.

 

[Paul Rodgers]

I had a client who had SBS and when the server died (hard-drive) failure I encouraged them to upgrade to Server 2008 R2 because it was scalable and SBS 2003 was reaching end of life. That being said I didn't realize the R2 was only 64 bit and had a few complications along the way but was able to get the programmers to re-code the 32 bit app. Along with the anti-virus application. My client doesn't use Exchange and it was only taking bandwidth on the SBS server. Have you looked in co-hosted Exchange with MS? It could be easier and less headache.

Let us know how it goes.

SBS 2008 and 2011 are both 64 bit only. We are going to have to start taking the plunge into 64 bit sooner or later. The way I see things is that the initial cost of ownership might be high, but eventually we would end up paying more for a hosted Exchange setup over the life of the system. CAL additions are a one time cost for the life of the system. HDD space is cheap and can be scaled to our needs. We already have a server that can be re-tasked for SBS 2011 or Server 2008 R2 + Exchange 2010 with just the cost of software/licensing + RAM upgrade.

As for users we have 30 AD (I counted this time) users and 6 that do not have domain accounts but would need email. I found out that the user limit is based on your CALs and not connected devices.

 

[Cuban_Tech]

Linux is what you want.

Ubuntu Server or CentOS...joking, although I really think these are superior products. However, in this case, I'd go with Server 2008.

 

[colonydata]

another vote for 2008 r2.

have you looked at the roi of running your own exchange server vs hosted?

i looked into it for a client year 1 and 2 the hosted option was cheaper but in years 3 4 and 5 diy was cheaper.

 

[Paul Rodgers]

another vote for 2008 r2.

have you looked at the roi of running your own exchange server vs hosted?

i looked into it for a client year 1 and 2 the hosted option was cheaper but in years 3 4 and 5 diy was cheaper.

They will run this until the OS is no longer compatible or the system dies. I'm guessing 7-8 years.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

I would recommend you not host your own exchange. The additional support costs for this will far out pace the hosting fees. Let all the problems be handled by the remote host company who has in house experts.

I push all clients away from this unless their business strategy includes groupware, and all the connects to smart phones and such or for some reason they must host their own crap. Then I warn them of the additional costs. I figure it doubles the support costs of a Windows server.

When exchange acts up, it acts up. It takes a great deal time as well as of hardware horsepower to run. I hate it.

 

[MobileTechie]

I have the other view. I hate pushing my clients towards other suppliers and giving the support money to someone else.

Exchange can run for years with no problems. If some crop up then it's my job to sort them out and I get paid to do so.

BTW have you gone around rejuvinating every old server-based thread or something?! There must be about 30 such threads just this morning.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

I have the other view. I hate pushing my clients towards other suppliers and giving the support money to someone else.

Exchange can run for years with no problems. If some crop up then it's my job to sort them out and I get paid to do so.

BTW have you gone around rejuvinating every old server-based thread or something?! There must be about 30 such threads just this morning.

Yeah, hope that is ok.

I couldn't sleep.

Figure if someone does a search in the future the tidbits might be useful.

PS you are right about getting and keeping the support work for Exchange....

 

[MobileTechie]

Yeah, hope that is ok.

I couldn't sleep.

Figure if someone does a search in the future the tidbits might be useful.

PS you are right about getting and keeping the support work for Exchange....

I don't run this place and I don't mind. I just noticed what appeared to be a load of new server related threads to interest me, only to be disappointed to then remember that I'd already read them all months ago!

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

I like your logo, its attention getting.