Reading up on the Core installation of Server 2008 and it seems to be recommended for "infrastructure" servers, i.e. those running things like DNS and DHCP.
Now, is it really that advantageous to dedicate a machine to such roles? In an ideal world we'd have a separate server (physical or virtual) for each task or application but, in the real world, this eats up licences. I could build a dedicated server for DNS and DHCP duties but then I'd want another server performing those roles too for redundancy so I'd be faced with eating two licences just for such tasks or possibly having one Core install and putting the second instance of DNS and DHCP on another server which is performing other tasks too but then this surely negates the whole point of a dedicated infrastructure server?
Bit confused about what the best way forward here is. Looking at reorganising and rebuilding our server structure from scratch, using virtual machines where possible and trying to work out the best way of organising things.
Now, is it really that advantageous to dedicate a machine to such roles? In an ideal world we'd have a separate server (physical or virtual) for each task or application but, in the real world, this eats up licences. I could build a dedicated server for DNS and DHCP duties but then I'd want another server performing those roles too for redundancy so I'd be faced with eating two licences just for such tasks or possibly having one Core install and putting the second instance of DNS and DHCP on another server which is performing other tasks too but then this surely negates the whole point of a dedicated infrastructure server?
Bit confused about what the best way forward here is. Looking at reorganising and rebuilding our server structure from scratch, using virtual machines where possible and trying to work out the best way of organising things.
