SQL Server 2008 and Windows Server 2012 Essentials

[cstech]

I have a potential new client that is looking at getting an actual server instead of a workstation posing as a server. They will need it for 5 purposes only so far. They have 5 workstations and will not be growing more than 10 total over three years. They have two pieces of propitiatory software they use for their business. One is a Access database frontend, the other requires (and includes) MS SQL Server 2008. They also want a dedicated quickbooks host, and a file server. I figured with all of that to make things easier for me we would include AD as well. The question I have is the software side, would Server 2012 essentials work for this purpose? Mainly because of the SQL server aspect. They are currently using a workstation with windows 7 pro to host the software.

They will be using Office 365 for software and email (switching from a bunch of random free gmail and internet provider accounts to a centrally managed system) so they will not need exchange.

I am still new to the server world and am working hard to learn as much as I can to branch out into that market as most of the clients I am picking up are needing at least a small server if for no other purpose than a file server, and nightly backups.

 

[bluecoast]

I would strongly consider getting them into server 2012 standard instead of essentials. Essentials is limited to 25 users, where as standard with the essentials feature pack goes up to 75 users with the essentials features and as many standard AD accounts as you want.

I know they don't plan on growing, but the cost difference is not too big and would save a lot of hassle down the road.


This is a big one:
Server standard also gives you Virtualization rights to run 2 VM's on top of a host hyper-v server. This effectively gives you 2 server 2012R2 licenses for the cost of one. Essentials does not offer virtualization rights.

 

[cstech]

From what they have now and how their business model is setup I don't ever see them reaching close to the 25 device limit on essentials. I also do not see them needing the complication that virtualization would bring for what they would be using this for. They have a total of 5 devices now and I see them adding maybe 4 more in the next 3 years that would be accessing the server resources. They have 4 iPads and I would see them adding maybe 4 more of those. The main things they need are the file server aspect which I am offering an option using a NAS instead of the server as a more budget friendly option. So my question is if MS SQL Server comes bundled with their software would Essentials be able to run it? The software is running now on a Windows 7 workstation so I do not see why it would not. I just want to make sure.

I am focusing a good bit on their actual network infrastructure and getting that straightened out with wireless access points and a quality UTM. (I have spent a large amount of time in Untangle lately and am running it in my shop now) I really want to get the networked applications off the workstation an on a dedicated box I am just hoping essentials will handle it because it is going to be a stretch when they see the price difference between the NAS and the Server. I will be showing all the things that the server will do for them over the NAS, so not too hard to convince them.

 

[bluecoast]

Without knowing the software I cannot say 100% it will work on 2012R2, but like you mentioned, if it works okay in 7, it should be fine on 2012.

I have a 2008 sql instance running on 2012, not 2012R2 with no trouble.

I would start tinkering around with virtualization. If you have not deployed any yet, this probably isn't the right time, but it comes in handy even with small clients.

I had one recently that needed to install some software for the cafeteria. The vendor needed admin level access permanently. I was not going to give an unknown vendor, domain wide admin privileges(which would have been my only option on the DC). Instead, I spun up a second VM for them to use as the playground for their software. They have admin, but I still have control of the domain, win win. Generally, I try to install as little as possible on the DC.

Even for small clients, virtualizing makes sense in my opinion. It gives you much more flexibility in setup, migration and disaster recovery.

Make sure to brief them on the remote access tools in 2012 essentials. Most clients love the ability to login from home.

 

[cstech]

The big points for them is the security and file access, with single login for everything using AD. This is one of those clients that knows enough to be dangerous and wants to know "everything" I am doing more for their own sake. They have been burned in the past so just dotting Is and crossing all my Ts. Then there is the UTM that gives overall network lockdown however they want it. They currently have Logmein for remote use and only for the one computer (the workstation/server) part of the reason for getting the server stuff off of there. She doesn't want anybody having remote access but her (the owner).

I will defiantly do some playing around with virturals just haven't had a need to before now. most of my clients are so far behind I am having to get them to play catchup just to be behind.