Any Information Technology Professionals That Can Point Me In The Right Direction?

[bookem]

I have these three aging servers that I would like to consolidate into one physical box. I don't really want to convert what I currently have into Virtual Machines's, since they were here before I was and I want to start from scratch so I know exactly what is going into them. I would like to get one powerful box, and break it out into 4 Windows Server 2008 VM's. One would be used for the Domain Controller, DNS, Application, File and Print server. The second would be used just as a web server using IIS - which I have to use as that is what is required by our application vendor. Third would be just the SQL server. And the fourth would be used as my XMPP, Fax, and email server.

The DC would obviously be part of the domain since its controlling it. I would keep the web server, and the xmpp/fax/email server outside of the domain, preferably separated from the domain with a firewall. Is it best practice to keep the SQL server outside or part of the domain?

Just to give you an idea of what I'm working with, it’s a business with 10 workstations, all in one building. Each is constantly using an application which queries the SQL database, all day, every day.

The planning stage is in its infancy at this point, but with has been stated, am I on the right track? What would you recommend for hardware for something like this? Any other advice, recommendations?

Below is the current setup and what I want to do.

Server 1

-------------

Processor: Intel P4 2.4GHz

Memory: 1GB

OS: Windows 2000 Server

Responsibilities:

- Domain Controller

- DNS

- Application Server

- SQL (SQL Server 2000)

- File Server

- Print Server

Server 2

--------------

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 3400+ 2.2GHz

Memory: 1GB

OS: Windows Server 2003

Responsibilities:

- Web server (IIS)

- Email Server for the online payment system

Note: This server is not part of the domain, but has a user to read the SQL database on "Server 1" for an online payment system.

Server 3

----------------

Processor: Intel Xeon 2.8GHz

Memory: 1GB

OS: Windows Server 2003

Responsibilities:

- XMPP Server

- Fax Server

- Secondary Email Server

Note: This server is not part of the domain

Thanks!

[diaperboy4life]

Computers are a hobby of mine and I am a bit of a nerd. Im good with hardware and software as I build my own computers from scratch, however Im sorry to say I cant help you in this department, Good luck!

[KrisNdiapers]

as far as I know running VMs are best used for testing software. If you want to run four servers dont do it in one box, it would be easier to get four semi new computers and moniter them by yourself with a 4way keybourd mouse display toggle switch.

[babybub]

Your Physical ESX host would need a fair but of memory and maybe 2 to 4 CPUS. I would build a DC on one VMware guest, this would also have DNS and DHCP. The second guest could be you application file, print server, Fax and email server. The 3rd for your SQL server (I would suggest at least 4GB of memory allocated to SQL). And the 4th your WEB server.

The Physical ESX host should have no less than 12GB of memory. I would resommend at least 2GB for the Dc and Web server, 4GB for the Application/Email server. I take it you will be using Exchange. And the 4GB for the SQL server, even 8GB for SQL would do no harm.

Just my thoughts.

[lil_baby_wet_n_squishy]

You should go with 2 ESX servers so you are covered for redundancy. You can use vmware with vmotion to load balance the VMs between the two servers and for fail-over for physical server maintenance. They have less expensive licensing solutions for small businesses. You should also look at moving that SQL database that is so important to a NAS.

[babychrise]

I agree with what the others have said, you'll want at least two node in your ESX cluster. Buy the biggest machines in terms of ram/cpu that you can afford. For migrating to the VMs, I recall VMWare offering a product that will tirn physical machines into VMs.

[Army_Baby1]

The First problem I see in the configuration is that you need more memory, For me , I'm running ESX Box, min RAM is 2 with 4 being recommended. As for the web lay out, I would pull the SQL server into the domain and secure it behind the firewall for sure are what you are saying you are wanting to run on it.

The only Server that should not be part of the domain is the one that is in front of the firewall and if you do everything right even that one can be. The reason I say anything in front of the firewall does not is because of hackers. If they breach it they get the name and access. The reason I say you want it on the domain is beace it makes management alot easier.

My current that I'm running is 1 ESX server running 3 VM servers right now. Next ESX server Running firewall, remote Tunnel. Last ESX Email, SQL, DNS, Proxy server. This is just the basic stuff there is also an OS server that we run for 21 computers to cloud computer and remote OS..

I like the ESX because it is a basic VM base server, and it pulls no resources. The reason I VM everything is that I can take a snapshot once a week and if it does crash part then I just restore that one part and drive on..

Good luck there is so many way to do the configurations. It is also something that each admin has to decide, but once it is up then it becomes a pain to change

[bookem]

Thanks for everyone's replies. I will most definitely have a ton of ram available. The hardware I'm looking into is a pretty stout Dell R710 server, loaded up with dual processors, and 32 gigs of ram, with a PowerVault MD3220i for storage of the VM's, Database, etc...

That should be more then sufficient to run the 3 or 4 servers I want, right?

[BoTox]

First, definitely use VMware and make it the ESX 4.1i, which doesn't have the large installed linux kernel to be susceptible to attacks. It installs from one CD, its free and you can get your feet wet with about any hardware from a dual core 2 gig desktop on up to real servers.

Second, virtualize your vCenter server if you go with vCenter so that you can easily recover it should it have an issue.

Third, I echo the 2 server rule or you will regret it, SAN required for anything interesting

If you are going cheap (as in free) then VMware gives the ESX 4.1i software away that can run up to 6 cores. I have one at the house running on an old quad core with 7 machines on it, 3 XP, 1 Win2003 server, 2 linux and a single Win7 test box.

For physical boxes, we try to put at least 2G of RAM per CPU core. A dual core dual socket should shoot for no less than 8G of RAM. However, more cores per socket is the best bang for the buck when you have to license it. A single 4 core costs less than a dual core double socket. 8 cores are quite easily had these days and really save some bucks if you wind up going big. In a server class machine, I wouldn't settle for anything less than quad cores.

Finally, the great thing about VMware is you can thin provision the disks, which is just a fancy way of saying you gave a VM a 100G harddisk and if it only uses 32G, you saved 68G for later. You can also save some memory when running multiple machines with the same OS kernel. You don't have to give a VM all the memory that you would a physical box due to this synergy and the fact that you can alter and monitor the mem/cpu usage in real time to make adjustments.

I would not run a firewall on a VM because I'm a hardware firewall lover. Dedicated hardware all the way for that one. I put nothing on the real internet except the firewall. Everything that has connections to it from outside is DMZ'd. Then, you only open the ports you are using and let the rest bounce off the wall.

Just my opinions but I've been using VMware since before they sold a product and it was a research project!

[Zander]

Is it best practice to keep the SQL server outside or part of the domain?

Are you setting managing your access to SQL server via the AD? If so you have little choice! Keep in mind if you are using the SQL server for more than the application you hint at, this might be a requirement for you anyway.

Otherwise, from a technical purity approach and partially a security standpoint, I'd recommend keeping it outside your domain and ideally out in the DMZ with the webserver. If you need another SQL server for your other applications (and don't have to worry about the licenses) then you could always deploy another SQL instance attached to the domain.

Keep in mind RAM is unlikely to be a problem if you've done the due diligence - I'd be more concerned about I/O throughput - esp. if you have high transaction rates on any of the major applications and if you aren't using SSD's, a decent raid config or a good performance SAN or NAS. CPU - especially if you're using something as inefficient as Exchange - is also more likely to be a concern, but frankly (looking at what you've put down), I simply don't think you'll have an issue with performance. We're not talking about 5000+ concurrent connections are we?

Third, I echo the 2 server rule or you will regret it, SAN required for anything interesting ...

I would not run a firewall on a VM because I'm a hardware firewall lover. Dedicated hardware all the way for that one. I put nothing on the real internet except the firewall. Everything that has connections to it from outside is DMZ'd. Then, you only open the ports you are using and let the rest bounce off the wall.

Agreed. This guy ^^ actually knows something about best practice it would seem

Bootnote: I've not used much Microsoft stuff in a while and I don't know how VMWare stacks up against, for example, HyperV. Given how small your environment is I'd recommend you take a look at other options. Obviously check the supported configurations from your application vendors - VMWare is usually a given though. I'm sorry I can't really help on the details - I know a lot of VCP's but I'm not one, when it comes to the SW stack - I'm on the RHCE side of the fence, not the MCSE side!

as far as I know running VMs are best used for testing software. If you want to run four servers dont do it in one box, it would be easier to get four semi new computers and moniter them by yourself with a 4way keybourd mouse display toggle switch.

... you don't work in IT, do you?

[moi]

I'll agree with the previous poster... virtualization is just fine for a production environment if it's implemented correctly.

But let me make the argument for a more conservative route... I don't think multiple servers and that other fancy stuff is warranted for an office with only 10 people. My vote would be for buying one good server with built-in redundancy (multiple processors, redundant power supplies, RAID) and a healthy amount of RAM and have at it. Our virtualization server at work has dual quad-core Xeons (the newer ones that are hyperthreaded so the OS thinks it's got 16 processors!), 32 gigs of RAM, and about a terabyte of disk space. We've got about 12 VMs running on it at any given time, some of which are heavily utilized (SQL server) and others which are not so much (domain controller).

Also I'll put in a good word for Hyper-V: if you're a Microsoft person it's very easy to learn and use (at least the GUI version that's included with Server 2008) and in my experience provides good performance.

[BoTox]

I'll agree with the previous poster... virtualization is just fine for a production environment if it's implemented correctly.

But let me make the argument for a more conservative route... I don't think multiple servers and that other fancy stuff is warranted for an office with only 10 people. My vote would be for buying one good server with built-in redundancy (multiple processors, redundant power supplies, RAID) and a healthy amount of RAM and have at it. Our virtualization server at work has dual quad-core Xeons (the newer ones that are hyperthreaded so the OS thinks it's got 16 processors!), 32 gigs of RAM, and about a terabyte of disk space. We've got about 12 VMs running on it at any given time, some of which are heavily utilized (SQL server) and others which are not so much (domain controller).

Also I'll put in a good word for Hyper-V: if you're a Microsoft person it's very easy to learn and use (at least the GUI version that's included with Server 2008) and in my experience provides good performance.

If, BIG IF, you never plan to grow beyond that little environment, Windows HyperV may be enough. VMware is like crack, once you get a taste for making a VM out of nothing in 10 minutes, you can't go back to the old. Once you hot migrate a running machine between ESX servers, you will never look at Intel hardware/software again.

If you only need a single server, I agree with buying a fairly maxed out single machine, as many cores as possible per socket and as much memory as it will hold. I consider that putting all your eggs in one ESX basket but it will work well enough and it is free. Can't beat the price.

[bookem]

Great stuff! Thanks again for all the input.

I'm pretty sure I want to go with VMWare for a few reasons. 1) track record: its the big guy in the room and has been round for quite a while with great success. Not saying Hyper-v isn't as good, it just hasn't been implemented as much as VMWare, and there has to be a good reason for that. 2) support: Since its so commonly used, it will be easier to find support should I ever need it. And 3) Scalability. Chances are my environment and system demands may change here pretty soon and I'll need to be ready for it.

The two server config is a really good thought. I'll look into it and see if i can squeeze it into my budget.