DC/Exchange/SQL on the same server

richard1032

richard1032

richard1032

Associate
Joined
11 Apr 2007
Posts
51
My boss has created a 2008 R2 Enterprise Domain controller with Exchange 2010 on and has now asked me to install SQL 2008 Server on it also. This screams out disaster to me but I wondered if anyone else has done anything crazy like this in the past and actually got it working? The hardware is more than capable and there is only around 20 - 30 users that will be using it.
 
What's the hardware?

What sort of load are the different parts going to be under - how big are the mailboxes, databases etc?

I'd be VERY concerned about it, if you absolutely must then use Hyper-V to virtualise the 3 different roles
 
Hardware wise it should be more than capable and it will be under little load with the mailboxes not being large, databases are small etc etc so on the hardware side I have no concerns at all. The thing that concerns me is running SQL Server and Exchange on a DC. I like your hyper v idea however.
 
What's the rough spec of the hardware though?

You'll need a decent amount of RAM and disk configuration will be very important here. ESXi would be worth considering too. I'd approach it by using the converter to convert the existing machine to a VM. I'd then install Exchange in a separate VM and migrate the mailboxes over. Then I'd decomission Exchange from the DC and alter the disk/resource configuration appropriately. You should then have enough disk space to install a VM for SQL. IF your hardware is up to it, this should be fine, but I've got a horrible feeling you're going to tell me this is a desktop PC your boss built himself!
 
Domain controllers should be single purpose machines. Having a DC/Exchange/SQL server on the same box will most likely work, but is not recommended.

I second the idea of using either Hyper-V or ESXi to host these machines independently. After all, there are many pre-implementation questions you need to ask yourself surrounding security/backups/disaster/maintenance/recovery. etc etc
 
Last edited:
Microsoft do NOT support Exchange or SQL on DCs EXCEPT in the case of Small Business Server 2003/2008 so that's something to bear in mind!

** EDIT **

After checking, it seems that it is not not supported but is definitely not recommended. Aside from the workload that a DC already has before sticking Exchange on it as well, the lack of local user accounts on a DC is another important issue to bear in mind!
 
Last edited:
JonnyT said:
Aside from the workload that a DC already has
Click to expand...

...what, DC workload is minimal but obviously scales up depending on the size of the business.

You have a valid point, it isn't not not supported but they will advise against it.
 
No way would I run DC/Exchange/SQL on the same server!

iaind said:
ESXi would be worth considering too. I'd approach it by using the converter to convert the existing machine to a VM. I'd then install Exchange in a separate VM and migrate the mailboxes over. Then I'd decomission Exchange from the DC and alter the disk/resource configuration appropriately. You should then have enough disk space to install a VM for SQL. IF your hardware is up to it, this should be fine, but I've got a horrible feeling you're going to tell me this is a desktop PC your boss built himself!
Click to expand...

This!

If your hardware's upto it I'd virtualize the three and have the server running ESXi with the three VMs on it.
 
Personally having installed servers for 90 / 100 companies, and having installed 100's of servers and also having supported windows since NT3.5...

I would would install it on the same server, jsut make sure you have plenty of memory... considering the price id make sure you ahve 4gb..

I say its ok to install because I have done it and because SBS also does it by default.

single role DC? thats fine in a large setup but for 20 users?

(assuming the load is not two high and the hardware is up to scratch)

worst case its too slow and you take it off....

if you install ESX you are adding another level of software to go wrong, and another software overhead on your hardware, and another software platform to support...

also with the esx you have to either buy another server or reinstall the server with esx and then reinstall your servers on top or try a P to V which means additional machines...
 
edscdk said:
Personally having installed servers for 90 / 100 companies, and having installed 100's of servers and also having supported windows since NT3.5...

I would would install it on the same server, jsut make sure you have plenty of memory... considering the price id make sure you ahve 4gb..

I say its ok to install because I have done it and because SBS also does it by default.

single role DC? thats fine in a large setup but for 20 users?

(assuming the load is not two high and the hardware is up to scratch)

worst case its too slow and you take it off....

if you install ESX you are adding another level of software to go wrong, and another software overhead on your hardware, and another software platform to support...

also with the esx you have to either buy another server or reinstall the server with esx and then reinstall your servers on top or try a P to V which means additional machines...
Click to expand...

I would disagree to be honest.

Having that combination of software on a single physical server is a large risk in terms of security, scalability and manageability.

Like you and other people have mentioned we need to know the specifications of this server but I would predict that it's a suitable candidate for virtualisation. True it would add another layer of software (albeit quite lightweight) on the server the benefits gained would strongly outweigh the decision to avoid it. Someone who is IT competent can pick up the basics of ESXi in a day or so. I've had to.

In terms of reliability, I've not had a single problem with my ESXi deployment since I installed it (~6 months ago)

It wouldn't take that long to re-create VM's replicating the current setup onto the hypervisor, even without using PtoV. For this scale of a company I doubt the configuration is going to be that complex.

I would only consider install those software applications on a single physical server as a very, very last measure. Also, I would put more than 4GB of RAM in this machine.
 
Last edited:
DiscoDave said:
I would disagree to be honest.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying your opinion is wrong

there are 4 options

1) add some ram, install SQL, there is no technical reason not to do this, worst case the database is a hog and you have to get another server and repoint the clients ODBC (NO RISK)

2) install HyperV on your server install a new server on that server and install SQL into the new virtual server, you will need to alocate a fixed size disc as the dynamic setup can be very slow this will tie up a lot of disc space. (Minimal risk but more load on the server and a big reduction in disk space)

3) trash the lot and start from scratch using esx of hyperv, install two or 3 seperate virtual servers onto the host os (major risk, hours work, hours down time, possible new software and concepts to learn)

4) buy a server and software install it on the new server (no risk best but most expensive solution)

I spoke to your senior system architect who said no reason not to do option 1 (unless there is a spare server doing nothing)

(i am assuming its a database to be accessed by lan users only, and not a back end to a web app or random internet users, if this is the case punch your boss for being stupid)
 
I just looked at the server he has bought.

It is a Proliant DL380 G6
2x Xeon X5550
12GB RAM
After raid there is around 1TB of space

The server will only be used for the 20 - 30 people on there VLan with no public facing web sites. From the little knowledge I have they are are not heavy users. If this was me personally I would not have done it this way but as the kit is already purchased i guess we will go with it and see what happens.

Cheers for all the input guys
 
richard1032 said:
I just looked at the server he has bought.

It is a Proliant DL380 G6
2x Xeon X5550
12GB RAM
After raid there is around 1TB of space

The server will only be used for the 20 - 30 people on there VLan with no public facing web sites. From the little knowledge I have they are are not heavy users. If this was me personally I would not have done it this way but as the kit is already purchased i guess we will go with it and see what happens.

Cheers for all the input guys
Click to expand...

wow lol, thats a powerful exchange server.... either you said it was for up to 1000 users or the sales man was very good..
 
I remember an Exchange server at Southend Council that had 256mb RAM and served ~4k users....this was back in Exchange 5.5 days but even so was a little bit extreme.

Running all that stuff is "fine" but operationally inconvenient since, for a possible example patching the SQL server may need you having to bounce the Exchange server too.

Running it under the free ESXi as 3 VM's is an excellent idea, and this is someone who's installed it on 1,000's of servers since NT 3.1 beta days ;)
 
We tried this on a test server and found it can bugger up the AD good proper. SQL server interfaced with the AD somewhere and totlly over wrote it all. I wasnt there at the time so didnt get the full story.

If it was me I would install on a seperate server completly. As I take this si a webserver it would be good to place the server in its own DMZ.
 
richard1032 said:
I just looked at the server he has bought.

It is a Proliant DL380 G6
2x Xeon X5550
12GB RAM
After raid there is around 1TB of space

The server will only be used for the 20 - 30 people on there VLan with no public facing web sites. From the little knowledge I have they are are not heavy users. If this was me personally I would not have done it this way but as the kit is already purchased i guess we will go with it and see what happens.

Cheers for all the input guys
Click to expand...

Sounds like more kit than you need! Ideal scenario for using ESX really!
 
It's certainly not best practice, but it will work. I've seen several boxes configured this way and ultimately is what happens with premium SBS boxes.

I would agree with a previous comment and not complicate matters by sticking ESXi on the box. Just my opinion.
 
If the SQL dba is a hog, it will essentially rape your box. If something dies in that box you have no mail, no dc or dba. Not a wonderful idea.

Simple answer is - don't do it. Don't you have a file server knocking round or a half decent old server box you can use for the DC to at least get that off it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom