SBS2003 Prem. versus SBS2003 Std. & ISA2004

Discussion in 'Windows Small Business Server' started by Daniel, Jun 3, 2004.

  1. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    I'm contemplating on an SBS2003 installation for 40 users
    and I don't need SQL2000, but need top security such as
    ISA. It is even more cost effective to purchase the
    standard edition of SBS2003 and add a second 2003 Server
    with ISA2004 (beta for now), it will be more secure and
    take a load off the domain controller. Configuring
    ISA2004 will be a different story.
    Has anyone tried this? Any pros and cons to this?
    Your input is appreciated.

    Daniel
     
    Daniel, Jun 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. It is definitely more secure (assuming that you properly configure the ISA
    box). However, you will not have the SBS wizards doing their stuff. I
    haven't tested ISA2k4, so I don't know how easy/difficult the installation
    is... but it was supposed to be easier (although, it is more restricted by
    default).

    Are there any ISA-specific features that you are looking for?
     
    Javier Gomez [SBS MVP], Jun 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    Thanks for your reply Javier.
    I'd like to get the ISA2004 to do what ISA2000 does on
    SBS2k3, OWA, Remote Web Workplace, etc...
    I setup SBS2k3Prem. with ISA2000 for 15 users and it
    works like a charm on a dual Xeon with 2GbECCRam, but
    this other company have 40 users and that's where the
    performance will be affected, and it's not a very good
    practice to have ISA on the domain controller, also I'll
    have a second Win2k3 Server as File/Print Server...
    Daniel
    easy/difficult the installation
     
    Daniel, Jun 3, 2004
    #3
  4. Hi Daniel

    Saw a demo of ISA 2004 at a TS2 Seminar in Mobile AL last month. It was
    Extremely easy to configure. The Interface was very easy to navigate and I
    can't wait to upgrade my ISA to 2k4 as soon as it is available. I have the
    latest beta but I am just not that brave to put it on my office server!

    Frank McCallister
    COMPUMAC
     
    Frank McCallister, Jun 3, 2004
    #4
  5. Wait until the wizards....

    Not to mention that we aren't licensed for it [yet] and you'd need ISA
    cals for this.

     
    Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP], Jun 3, 2004
    #5
  6. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    Thanks Susan
    I know that the SBS wizard for internet connection that
    does 90% of ISA config won't work, and manual config of
    ISA2k4 might turn a few hairs grey, but I think it's
    worth it for security reasons and to take a load off SBS.
    In terms of licensing my understanding is that one CAL is
    required for a stand alone Win2003 Server, and ISA is
    licensed per processor. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
    Regards,
    Daniel
     
    Daniel, Jun 3, 2004
    #6
  7. Yes... ISA does not require CALs (unless is licensed with the SBS box).

    IMHO-> If you are going to do this, do it for the added security. If your
    worry is that this will consume too many resources of the SBS box... I don't
    think so. You are not running SQL and you have a 2nd server for file/print
    stuff, plus it looks like a hefty box... I don't think performace will be an
    issue here (at all).

    --
    Javier [SBS MVP]

    << SBS ROCKS !!! >>

     
    Javier Gomez [SBS MVP], Jun 3, 2004
    #7
  8. If you are going to be poking holes back to that Sharepoint and Exchange
    server on the SBS2k3 box, I'm not convinced that it's adding a lot.....
     
    Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP], Jun 3, 2004
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.