How can a small business set up a domain (hardware questons).

According to Msoft Best Practices, a Windows 2003 server domain needs two
servers that act as redundant DNS, and AD domain controllers at a minimum.
Since it's not good practice to allow users access to the DCs, it's
advisable to set up a third computer as a file server.

The problem here is that a decent RAID 5 Dell server is going to run around
$8000. This means a small business is looking at $24,000 in servers, on top
of buying switches, routers, APs and desktops.

If you're running an office with 15 workstations, what is the most cost
effective way to do a Domain? I don't want to run Small Business Server.

Thanks

Don't think I posted this question before unless it was accidental.

Following up the discussion, the Virtual Server solution will work, but does
that give me anything that running all on a single Domain Controller / File
Server doesn't? If the hardware goes down in a virtual environment, the
whole Domain goes down too since one computer is supporting all of the
virtual servers. It's unlikely that a single instance of Server running
virtually would ever get sick, so I don't see any benefit to running a
second virtual domain controller here. On the other side, if I am running
one computer that acts as a non-virtual DC and file server with no backup
DC, the same lack of redundancy applies. Computer goes down, the whole
domain dies too.

The only benefit that I see with the virtual setup is that there is better
separation between the virtual file server and the virtual DCs in the
virtual environment than in the single computer doing everything scenario.

On the negative side, the virtual solution requires a server with tons of
memory and whopping hot CPUs, while a single DC / file server can run with
normal hardware specs.

Why would I want to do this?

R



"Rog" <> wrote in message
news:LxTrl.74855$...
> According to Msoft Best Practices, a Windows 2003 server domain needs two
> servers that act as redundant DNS, and AD domain controllers at a minimum.
> Since it's not good practice to allow users access to the DCs, it's
> advisable to set up a third computer as a file server.
>
> The problem here is that a decent RAID 5 Dell server is going to run
> around $8000. This means a small business is looking at $24,000 in
> servers, on top of buying switches, routers, APs and desktops.
>
> If you're running an office with 15 workstations, what is the most cost
> effective way to do a Domain? I don't want to run Small Business Server.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>

Rog wrote:
> Don't think I posted this question before unless it was accidental.
>
> Following up the discussion, the Virtual Server solution will work,
> but does that give me anything that running all on a single Domain
> Controller / File Server doesn't? If the hardware goes down in a
> virtual environment, the whole Domain goes down too since one
> computer is supporting all of the virtual servers. It's unlikely
> that a single instance of Server running virtually would ever get
> sick, so I don't see any benefit to running a second virtual domain
> controller here. On the other side, if I am running one computer
> that acts as a non-virtual DC and file server with no backup DC, the
> same lack of redundancy applies. Computer goes down, the whole
> domain dies too.
> The only benefit that I see with the virtual setup is that there is
> better separation between the virtual file server and the virtual DCs
> in the virtual environment than in the single computer doing
> everything scenario.
> On the negative side, the virtual solution requires a server with
> tons of memory and whopping hot CPUs, while a single DC / file server
> can run with normal hardware specs.
>
> Why would I want to do this?
>
> R
>
>
>
> "Rog" <> wrote in message
> news:LxTrl.74855$...
>> According to Msoft Best Practices, a Windows 2003 server domain
>> needs two servers that act as redundant DNS, and AD domain
>> controllers at a minimum. Since it's not good practice to allow
>> users access to the DCs, it's advisable to set up a third computer
>> as a file server. The problem here is that a decent RAID 5 Dell server is
>> going to run
>> around $8000. This means a small business is looking at $24,000 in
>> servers, on top of buying switches, routers, APs and desktops.
>>
>> If you're running an office with 15 workstations, what is the most
>> cost effective way to do a Domain? I don't want to run Small
>> Business Server. Thanks

You really should re-examine the SBS and EBS familys. They're not just
single servers any more although SBS *can* be.

If you deploy relaible hardware then a single server implementation is very
effective and reliable for a small business. The MS best practice cited is
valid for larger environments and partially comes from the NT3.x and NT4
days and the more complex root, parent, child forests/domains of first
generation (2000) Active Directory implementations.

In practice it's much easier to recover a single domain, single forest,
single DC (SBS) environment than anything else. Verified good and complete
backups are of course essential in any enviroment.

In the same breath, I wouldn't try and run a business of 100 or more on a
single DC either.

...but back to virtualizations. Why would lump multiple servers on one
hardware box. One, your hardware resoruces are shared amoungst the
virtualized images giving you flexability in adapting to a changing
environement. Two, you get portability of the Virtual machines. Once built
and deployed you can later move them off to a second Virtual Server as your
business grows or you upgrade the underlying Virtual Server without need to
reload, or modify the virtual machine.

But then we're back to why do you need to make such a complex solution for
15 users. One quality server with one quality Server suite (SBS2008)
properly implemented and managed should give you all you need for years to
come.


--
/kj