Suggested setup for Server 2012 + Exchange 2013 to replace SBS

[5tephen]

I'm quoting a client for replacing their SBS 2003 platform (which also has a second Server 2003 hosting terminal services).

I'm going to run two virtual servers on two 600Gb RAID 1 arrays (decent RAID card, processors and RAM already catered for). I'm just wanting to check that this is the best use of the arrays, and also that this configuration of software will actually work.

Server 1: Server 2012 DC hosting Active Directory, shared drives/redirected documents, printers
Server 2: Exchange 2013 server Std, Server 2012 terminal server, LOB applications (approx 5 SQL databases). Separate VHD for LOB applications will probably be stored on the first array as that array won't be pushed very much.

This is for 40 users, 15 of which will be terminal services users. Firstly is it OK to run terminal services on an Exchange server? I know that it can't/shouldn't be run on a DC, and Exchange shouldn't be run on a DC (unless in SBS form obviously) so this combination would be new to me.
At most I am hoping Exchange just needs to be placed on a separate array if IO becomes an issue at a later date, but at least stay within the same server OS, rather than having to purchase a second Server 2012 licence.

 

[5tephen]

SBS 2011 is not available on Open Licensing any more, the only option is OEM until December. I was under the impression that OEM software is a bit of a grey area when using in a VM environment, so I want to stick to Open Licensing. If they want a DR solution at some stage down the line at least I know that could be done with their existing licensing (i.e. being able to run their system off entirely different hardware).
Plus anyway SBS 2011 Premium only comes with 2008 R2 and I'd like to put the client onto the most recent software.

I would have loved to put a SBS solution in as it would just make things so much easier.

 

[5tephen]

I'm not sure I'd be happy having RDS on an Exchange Server. I'd try to get another 2012 Std license in the budget - then you'd have 1 + 4 virtualization rights.

Will two RAID1 mirrors have enough IOPS? What about moving to more smaller (450GB) spindles and using RAID10?

Point noted re. IOPS. I was thinking it would be better to isolate Exchange database activity and general TS usage from LOB SQL database work in case one feature wants to gobble up all the IOPS for itself. But I guess that this would not be giving the maximum performance possible if one aspect was being under-used. Hmmm...

It is annoying that I might potentially need 3 virtual servers to accomplish this, because I could see it being a viable solution for a few potential clients in the future but the licensing would put most people off. Do I need another set of 40 CAL's for the second Server 2012 licence?

 

[5tephen]

That's good news re. not needing another set of CAL's for a second Server 2012 licence, so it's 'only' about £700 for another Open licence for it. I would rather not have a third server running though, it seems like overkill for a relatively small setup. Any other opinions on Exchange existing within a TS server?
(In terms of resources, I'm probably going to go with the RAID 10 setup so thanks for that suggestion)

Not sure if they're keen on paying indefinitely for Exchange hosting, their on-site setup has worked very well to date and has given us no issues. They are looking at a solution that will last them a minimum of 5 years, an in-house solution makes better financial sense from that point of view, although the upfront cost is a bit of a hurdle. Another issue is that their broadband is 1.8Mb, 2Mb at most It would take ages to transfer their initial database and even internal emails will be a pain for them going forward. The backup software will be another ~£150 for Exchange-level item restore if required, so not a great expense.

 

[5tephen]

May as well dig up this thread as start a new one, as the advice has been useful so far and relevant for another couple of queries I have.
I've implemented 3 setups as per the above suggestions since discussing everything those few months ago. Rough spec of 2x 300Gb 10k SAS in RAID 1 for host OS, 4x 600Gb 10k SAS in RAID 10 for 3x guest OS (DC, Exchange, RDS for approx 15-20 users) and everything flies along. 48 or 64Gb RAM and 1x 6 core or 2x 6 core CPU depending on the requirements.

I am fine-tuning another spec for approx 50 users. At least 40 of these will be RDS users - MS Office, couple of LOB SQL applications. I've no hard and fast answers to the below so would welcome your input.
1. How important is it to have the host OS on separate disks? Is it for continuity purposes in some way, or for paging? I would have thought that once the host OS has booted and loaded into RAM (and given enough free RAM), it doesn't need the hard disk that much?
2. How well does Server 2012 R2 handle page file usage? Is it worth me specifying say one 40Gb fixed VHD per guest on the host OS disk and telling each guest VM to use that location for its page file, thereby keeping the main RAID 10 array to do its thing? Or should I just leave this alone.
3. The customer wants a pile of drives in the server just because 600Gb SAS have come down in price and they want to futureproof the system to incorporate document scanning. Again with 3 guest VM's, but a higher number of RDS users, what arrangement would you suggest for the disks? One huge 8x600Gb RAID 10 array for all 3 like #Chri5# suggested in an earlier post, or portion off the RDS somehow?

They're not coming from an existing TS environment and hope to install a new LOB application to tie in with this system, so it's rather difficult to gauge the resource needs in this case.