Yes, and No.
SBS Version anything must be a DC, (note, not the only DC) and must hold
all the FSMO roles.
But beyond that, you have asked if the SBS 2008 could hold the exchange server
instead of the Server 2003. And while it can, this is called a migration,
and it seems to me you have simply moved the "ton of stuff" from one box
to another.
The SBS may be better able to accomodate the roles you have in place, as
it is a 64 bit server and will allow for much more RAM than Server 2003,
but it hosts AD, Exchange, Sharepoint, DNS, DHCP and WSUS, and by EULA, none
of those roles can or should be moved to other boxes.
I never suggest that an organization that otherwise qualifies for SBS (less
than 75 CALS) not consider it, but you have to choose your battles wisely.
If you impliment SBS in this situation, have you gained anything of note
over where you are now?
Yes, you will gain very good monitoring and reporting, and RWW. This alone
may make it worth the addition of the SBS, but the concept of freeing up
resources on one box and instead running those resources on another box may
or may not be justified without our knowing a lot more than we do now.
In the end, should you decide to add SBS to the mix, look at a swing migration
from
www.sbsmigration.com. Highly recommended for the clarity of the end
goal and the least interuption of the network in the process.
-
Larry
Please post the resolution to your
issue so others may benefit
-
Get Your SBS Health Check at
www.sbsbpa.com
> A friend is needing some IT help and has a small company with one
> server that does a ton of stuff, including hosting an exchange server.
>
> Obviously, the server is the only DC for the 2003 domain.
>
> I suggested to him to move Exchange to a seperate server. If he buys a
> SBS2008 server, can you add that SBS server to the existing domain and
> Exchange org and migrate the mailboxes to the new server?
>