A number of our servers are coming up for renewal on their warranty, and
currently we are looking into whether or not we are better off replacing
them with new servers.

After some initial success with a virtual server I was using on the event of
Business Recovery I am thinking of replacing the 6+ servers with have with
just two more powerful servers and running the rest as virtualized machines.

Something along the lines of;

Main Machine (Virtual Server 2005)
Server 2003 - DNS
Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database

2nd Server (Virtual Server 2005)
Server 2003 - Secondary DNS
Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database (Replication/Running Reports)

And then have the data stored on a NAS (Word/Excel/PDF's/Audio Files).
Which we could also replicate to a second NAS at a remote office for
Business Recovery.

Then we have a 3rd server to at our recovery site which could take over if
our main office went down;

Recovery Server
Server 2003 - DNS
Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database

Server Spec's;
Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
8Gb RAM
Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing

Do you think something along these lines would be workable? Do I need to
perhaps looking at upping the server specs a little more?

We are a medium sized company with around 80+ users, probably half of those
would be local and the other half remote. Highest load on Terminal Server
I've seen is around 10-15, which is not likely to change any time soon.

Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated as I'm still very much in the
planning stages at the moment.

Thanks in advance, Andrew.

> Server Spec's;
> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
> 8Gb RAM
> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing

If I'm following you right and this is the disaster recovery server that
will replace 2 servers holding virtual hosts, I would consider at least 16
GB RAM if not more.


hth
DDS


"Andrew Staley" <andrew@staleyNOREPLIES.eclipseREPLIESNO.co.uk> wrote in
message news:84B28B52-FD93-420E-B421-7F9CEAD9012A@microsoft.com...
>A number of our servers are coming up for renewal on their warranty, and
>currently we are looking into whether or not we are better off replacing
>them with new servers.
>
> After some initial success with a virtual server I was using on the event
> of Business Recovery I am thinking of replacing the 6+ servers with have
> with just two more powerful servers and running the rest as virtualized
> machines.
>
> Something along the lines of;
>
> Main Machine (Virtual Server 2005)
> Server 2003 - DNS
> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>
> 2nd Server (Virtual Server 2005)
> Server 2003 - Secondary DNS
> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database (Replication/Running Reports)
>
> And then have the data stored on a NAS (Word/Excel/PDF's/Audio Files).
> Which we could also replicate to a second NAS at a remote office for
> Business Recovery.
>
> Then we have a 3rd server to at our recovery site which could take over if
> our main office went down;
>
> Recovery Server
> Server 2003 - DNS
> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>
> Server Spec's;
> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
> 8Gb RAM
> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing
>
> Do you think something along these lines would be workable? Do I need to
> perhaps looking at upping the server specs a little more?
>
> We are a medium sized company with around 80+ users, probably half of
> those would be local and the other half remote. Highest load on Terminal
> Server I've seen is around 10-15, which is not likely to change any time
> soon.
>
> Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated as I'm still very much in
> the planning stages at the moment.
>
> Thanks in advance, Andrew.

That was the spec I would use for all three, but your right if I plan on
using just one for disaster recovery then it's going to need a larger amount
of RAM I'd not thought much about that side, just an idea I'm toying with at
the moment.

"Danny Sanders" <DSanders@NOSPAMciber.com> wrote in message
news:%23jawwzoiIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Server Spec's;
>> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
>> 8Gb RAM
>> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing
>
> If I'm following you right and this is the disaster recovery server that
> will replace 2 servers holding virtual hosts, I would consider at least 16
> GB RAM if not more.
>
>
> hth
> DDS
>
>
> "Andrew Staley" <andrew@staleyNOREPLIES.eclipseREPLIESNO.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:84B28B52-FD93-420E-B421-7F9CEAD9012A@microsoft.com...
>>A number of our servers are coming up for renewal on their warranty, and
>>currently we are looking into whether or not we are better off replacing
>>them with new servers.
>>
>> After some initial success with a virtual server I was using on the event
>> of Business Recovery I am thinking of replacing the 6+ servers with have
>> with just two more powerful servers and running the rest as virtualized
>> machines.
>>
>> Something along the lines of;
>>
>> Main Machine (Virtual Server 2005)
>> Server 2003 - DNS
>> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>>
>> 2nd Server (Virtual Server 2005)
>> Server 2003 - Secondary DNS
>> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database (Replication/Running Reports)
>>
>> And then have the data stored on a NAS (Word/Excel/PDF's/Audio Files).
>> Which we could also replicate to a second NAS at a remote office for
>> Business Recovery.
>>
>> Then we have a 3rd server to at our recovery site which could take over
>> if our main office went down;
>>
>> Recovery Server
>> Server 2003 - DNS
>> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
>> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>>
>> Server Spec's;
>> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
>> 8Gb RAM
>> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing
>>
>> Do you think something along these lines would be workable? Do I need to
>> perhaps looking at upping the server specs a little more?
>>
>> We are a medium sized company with around 80+ users, probably half of
>> those would be local and the other half remote. Highest load on Terminal
>> Server I've seen is around 10-15, which is not likely to change any time
>> soon.
>>
>> Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated as I'm still very much in
>> the planning stages at the moment.
>>
>> Thanks in advance, Andrew.
>
>

For what it's worth we are going through server consolidation. Our virtual
hosts are using 32 GB RAM each.

I would up the RAM in each of your virtual hosts to 16 GB if not 32 at least
on the host with the Exchange and SQL servers.

hth
DDS


"Andrew Staley" <andrew@staleyNOREPLIES.eclipseREPLIESNO.co.uk> wrote in
message news:772E80C7-9958-4AE0-9E7B-A9B11D20A526@microsoft.com...
> That was the spec I would use for all three, but your right if I plan on
> using just one for disaster recovery then it's going to need a larger
> amount of RAM I'd not thought much about that side, just an idea I'm
> toying with at the moment.
>
> "Danny Sanders" <DSanders@NOSPAMciber.com> wrote in message
> news:%23jawwzoiIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Server Spec's;
>>> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
>>> 8Gb RAM
>>> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing
>>
>> If I'm following you right and this is the disaster recovery server that
>> will replace 2 servers holding virtual hosts, I would consider at least
>> 16 GB RAM if not more.
>>
>>
>> hth
>> DDS
>>
>>
>> "Andrew Staley" <andrew@staleyNOREPLIES.eclipseREPLIESNO.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:84B28B52-FD93-420E-B421-7F9CEAD9012A@microsoft.com...
>>>A number of our servers are coming up for renewal on their warranty, and
>>>currently we are looking into whether or not we are better off replacing
>>>them with new servers.
>>>
>>> After some initial success with a virtual server I was using on the
>>> event of Business Recovery I am thinking of replacing the 6+ servers
>>> with have with just two more powerful servers and running the rest as
>>> virtualized machines.
>>>
>>> Something along the lines of;
>>>
>>> Main Machine (Virtual Server 2005)
>>> Server 2003 - DNS
>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
>>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>>>
>>> 2nd Server (Virtual Server 2005)
>>> Server 2003 - Secondary DNS
>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
>>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database (Replication/Running Reports)
>>>
>>> And then have the data stored on a NAS (Word/Excel/PDF's/Audio Files).
>>> Which we could also replicate to a second NAS at a remote office for
>>> Business Recovery.
>>>
>>> Then we have a 3rd server to at our recovery site which could take over
>>> if our main office went down;
>>>
>>> Recovery Server
>>> Server 2003 - DNS
>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
>>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>>>
>>> Server Spec's;
>>> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
>>> 8Gb RAM
>>> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing
>>>
>>> Do you think something along these lines would be workable? Do I need
>>> to perhaps looking at upping the server specs a little more?
>>>
>>> We are a medium sized company with around 80+ users, probably half of
>>> those would be local and the other half remote. Highest load on
>>> Terminal Server I've seen is around 10-15, which is not likely to change
>>> any time soon.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated as I'm still very much in
>>> the planning stages at the moment.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance, Andrew.
>>
>>
>

Out of interest how many VM's are you running per host and what sort of
performance are you getting from them?

Are there any issues we perhaps should be aware of?

"Danny Sanders" <DSanders@NOSPAMciber.com> wrote in message
news:u6XiFapiIHA.4536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> For what it's worth we are going through server consolidation. Our virtual
> hosts are using 32 GB RAM each.
>
> I would up the RAM in each of your virtual hosts to 16 GB if not 32 at
> least on the host with the Exchange and SQL servers.
>
> hth
> DDS
>
>
> "Andrew Staley" <andrew@staleyNOREPLIES.eclipseREPLIESNO.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:772E80C7-9958-4AE0-9E7B-A9B11D20A526@microsoft.com...
>> That was the spec I would use for all three, but your right if I plan on
>> using just one for disaster recovery then it's going to need a larger
>> amount of RAM I'd not thought much about that side, just an idea I'm
>> toying with at the moment.
>>
>> "Danny Sanders" <DSanders@NOSPAMciber.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23jawwzoiIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> Server Spec's;
>>>> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
>>>> 8Gb RAM
>>>> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing
>>>
>>> If I'm following you right and this is the disaster recovery server that
>>> will replace 2 servers holding virtual hosts, I would consider at least
>>> 16 GB RAM if not more.
>>>
>>>
>>> hth
>>> DDS
>>>
>>>
>>> "Andrew Staley" <andrew@staleyNOREPLIES.eclipseREPLIESNO.co.uk> wrote in
>>> message news:84B28B52-FD93-420E-B421-7F9CEAD9012A@microsoft.com...
>>>>A number of our servers are coming up for renewal on their warranty, and
>>>>currently we are looking into whether or not we are better off replacing
>>>>them with new servers.
>>>>
>>>> After some initial success with a virtual server I was using on the
>>>> event of Business Recovery I am thinking of replacing the 6+ servers
>>>> with have with just two more powerful servers and running the rest as
>>>> virtualized machines.
>>>>
>>>> Something along the lines of;
>>>>
>>>> Main Machine (Virtual Server 2005)
>>>> Server 2003 - DNS
>>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
>>>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>>>>
>>>> 2nd Server (Virtual Server 2005)
>>>> Server 2003 - Secondary DNS
>>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
>>>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database (Replication/Running Reports)
>>>>
>>>> And then have the data stored on a NAS (Word/Excel/PDF's/Audio Files).
>>>> Which we could also replicate to a second NAS at a remote office for
>>>> Business Recovery.
>>>>
>>>> Then we have a 3rd server to at our recovery site which could take over
>>>> if our main office went down;
>>>>
>>>> Recovery Server
>>>> Server 2003 - DNS
>>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
>>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
>>>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>>>>
>>>> Server Spec's;
>>>> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
>>>> 8Gb RAM
>>>> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing
>>>>
>>>> Do you think something along these lines would be workable? Do I need
>>>> to perhaps looking at upping the server specs a little more?
>>>>
>>>> We are a medium sized company with around 80+ users, probably half of
>>>> those would be local and the other half remote. Highest load on
>>>> Terminal Server I've seen is around 10-15, which is not likely to
>>>> change any time soon.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated as I'm still very much
>>>> in the planning stages at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance, Andrew.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

In all honesty we are using VMware so we would be comparing apples to
oranges.


hth
DDS

"Andrew Staley" <andrew@staleyNOREPLIES.eclipseREPLIESNO.co.uk> wrote in
message news:9B7B36DF-AD46-4CD3-8BB7-CF54A23E225E@microsoft.com...
> Out of interest how many VM's are you running per host and what sort of
> performance are you getting from them?
>
> Are there any issues we perhaps should be aware of?
>
> "Danny Sanders" <DSanders@NOSPAMciber.com> wrote in message
> news:u6XiFapiIHA.4536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> For what it's worth we are going through server consolidation. Our
>> virtual hosts are using 32 GB RAM each.
>>
>> I would up the RAM in each of your virtual hosts to 16 GB if not 32 at
>> least on the host with the Exchange and SQL servers.
>>
>> hth
>> DDS
>>
>>
>> "Andrew Staley" <andrew@staleyNOREPLIES.eclipseREPLIESNO.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:772E80C7-9958-4AE0-9E7B-A9B11D20A526@microsoft.com...
>>> That was the spec I would use for all three, but your right if I plan on
>>> using just one for disaster recovery then it's going to need a larger
>>> amount of RAM I'd not thought much about that side, just an idea I'm
>>> toying with at the moment.
>>>
>>> "Danny Sanders" <DSanders@NOSPAMciber.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%23jawwzoiIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Server Spec's;
>>>>> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
>>>>> 8Gb RAM
>>>>> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing
>>>>
>>>> If I'm following you right and this is the disaster recovery server
>>>> that will replace 2 servers holding virtual hosts, I would consider at
>>>> least 16 GB RAM if not more.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> hth
>>>> DDS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Andrew Staley" <andrew@staleyNOREPLIES.eclipseREPLIESNO.co.uk> wrote
>>>> in message news:84B28B52-FD93-420E-B421-7F9CEAD9012A@microsoft.com...
>>>>>A number of our servers are coming up for renewal on their warranty,
>>>>>and currently we are looking into whether or not we are better off
>>>>>replacing them with new servers.
>>>>>
>>>>> After some initial success with a virtual server I was using on the
>>>>> event of Business Recovery I am thinking of replacing the 6+ servers
>>>>> with have with just two more powerful servers and running the rest as
>>>>> virtualized machines.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something along the lines of;
>>>>>
>>>>> Main Machine (Virtual Server 2005)
>>>>> Server 2003 - DNS
>>>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
>>>>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>>>>>
>>>>> 2nd Server (Virtual Server 2005)
>>>>> Server 2003 - Secondary DNS
>>>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
>>>>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database (Replication/Running Reports)
>>>>>
>>>>> And then have the data stored on a NAS (Word/Excel/PDF's/Audio Files).
>>>>> Which we could also replicate to a second NAS at a remote office for
>>>>> Business Recovery.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then we have a 3rd server to at our recovery site which could take
>>>>> over if our main office went down;
>>>>>
>>>>> Recovery Server
>>>>> Server 2003 - DNS
>>>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Exchange 2003
>>>>> Server 2003 - Virtual Terminal Server
>>>>> Linux - Virtual PostgreSQL Database
>>>>>
>>>>> Server Spec's;
>>>>> Quadcore Xeon 54xx @ 2.GHz (Single)
>>>>> 8Gb RAM
>>>>> Dual Network Card, configured with Load Balancing
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think something along these lines would be workable? Do I need
>>>>> to perhaps looking at upping the server specs a little more?
>>>>>
>>>>> We are a medium sized company with around 80+ users, probably half of
>>>>> those would be local and the other half remote. Highest load on
>>>>> Terminal Server I've seen is around 10-15, which is not likely to
>>>>> change any time soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated as I'm still very much
>>>>> in the planning stages at the moment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance, Andrew.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>