Would this work?

ubersonic

ubersonic

ubersonic

Soldato
Joined
26 May 2009
Posts
22,164
Yeah, so we have a SBS2003 box and as Exchange 2K3 is going out of support next April were looking to change that in the run up to a main server chain before Server 2K3 goes out in 2015.

My mental plan is to setup a new Server with a newer version of exchange (most likely Server 2008R2 with Exchange 2010 as we have these licenses spare) then change it so that the EX2010 box is the exchange for the domain but the SBS2K3 box stays as AD/DC/file server/etc.

Is that doable? I know the copy of exchange that came with SBS has to be on the SBS box but I'm unsure if I can have another exchange on the domain (and turn the standard one off).
 
Any reason for keeping the SBS2k3 going other than its just easier to keep that AD going?

I dont know if its any use or not but I use a method called a swing migration on my SBS upgrades. Allows you to move the existing AD/DNS/Exchange onto an updated SBS version with little downtime. You can also use it to transition from SBS to non SBS upgrades (ie move from SBS to Windows Server and Exchange)

http://www.sbsmigration.com/
 
tribz said:
Any reason for keeping the SBS2k3 going other than its just easier to keep that AD going?
Click to expand...

Server 2003 support doesn't end until mid 2015 whereas Exchange 2003 dies next April along with Windows XP. My plan if it's possible is to run the SBS box as the main unit for a while yet and simply build a new Windows Server box with newer Exchange to take over as MX, then later build up another new Windows Server box to take over the other functions, if that is doable, that will get me back to the old days of pre-SBS.


Caged said:
How many users do you have?
Click to expand...

4-5 depending on workflow, I own this company and it's network is kind of a pet project for me, started out as a Windows 3.11 workgroup with a coax bus lol.
 
Just migrate to Exchange Online. There's no point running your own mail server for 5 users and you aren't getting any relevant experience since you're running it on one server. You're better off learning how to do certain administrative tasks using Powershell (which you can do with hosted options) than being the guy who knows how to run Exchange on one box.

And when you have a flood or a power surge you can still get emails and make money.

Running things yourself because you can is pointless when it costs so little to get someone else to do it. Put the time into getting more leads or something.

Plus then you can offer the migration as a service to other people who are stuck with an on-premise mail server because you'll know how to do it.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I don't want to outsource it, I like having all my different servers on this site plus I do this for fun so outsourcing it would be counter productive.
 
Remember that using the wizards in SBS 2003 to create users etc (the recommended way to do it) would not create the EX2010 mailboxes, so you would need to factor that in.

I think you'd also need to factor in additional CALs for Exchange 2010 clients as well.

While technically possible, the tight integration on SBS will make it more tricky and error prone to add in EX2010.

If it were me and you desperately want to hold on to on premise Exchange, I'd consider SBS2011 (if you use RWA a lot) - this is Server 2008R2 + EX2010. You'd need to move very quickly though as you can only buy it OEM until the end of the year). I have a few clients on this and it is very solid...

Or you move to standalone servers + exchange + decommission SBS (if you have no need for RWA, Sharepoint or WSUS). There are lots of how to's out there for doing this (for example : here).

I know you want to do it as a pet project etc., but for so few users you have to question whether the expense is worth it, when a NAS and hosted Exchange could cover your needs. I have a few clients left on SBS 2003, and they are all moving to NAS/hosted Exchange (clients are all under 10 staff though and do have good internet links).
 
ubersonic said:
Yeah I don't want to outsource it, I like having all my different servers on this site plus I do this for fun so outsourcing it would be counter productive.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this logic at all. I can only assume that because you do it for fun that the domain that this server deals with email for isn't your business one and it doesn't matter if it falls over.

If it is your business address then just let someone else deal with it. For 99% of companies it's a better option, and that 1% have special requirements such as legal obligations. Outsourcing it lets you spend time on your business instead of time making email work.

By all means if you want to learn about Exchange then spin it up in a VM lab environment.
 
Caged said:
I don't understand this logic at all. I can only assume that because you do it for fun that the domain that this server deals with email for isn't your business one and it doesn't matter if it falls over.

If it is your business address then just let someone else deal with it. For 99% of companies it's a better option, and that 1% have special requirements such as legal obligations. Outsourcing it lets you spend time on your business instead of time making email work.

By all means if you want to learn about Exchange then spin it up in a VM lab environment.
Click to expand...

I agree mostly, but there's no guarantee outsourced email won't fall over either (and it does, even with good hosts).
 
I don't think you could consider it as anywhere near as likely to happen as Exchange running on one server on the end of a broadband connection.
 
Well Office 365 achieved uptimes of 99.98%, 99.97%, 99.94% and 99.97% in the last four quarters. Using the worst case scenario of 99.94% is 26 minutes of downtime over the entire year. Google's figures are even better than this.

Rebooting for patches once a month would get you to that figure, before you take into account routers having to re-sync, people kicking the plug, hardware issues etc.

Either you work exclusively with rock solid hardware in a stable environment (unlikely to exist in an organisation that has two servers) and software that doesn't need patching, or your chosen providers are terrible.
 
Last edited:
The small (6 people) IT support company I used to contract for did exactly the same thing, Mail used to be hosted on a windows server at the directors house (all site work, no office) and the web interface used to get in. They moved over to Google apps for business probably 4 years ago and never looked back. for ~£30 a year per account you get virtually 100% uptime, and we moved all our error reporting, asset tagging and General documentation to Google drive at the same time. Never looked back!

Most of their clients also gradually migrated over to it, once they saw how simple it was, and how it was one less thing that they had to pay us to support!
 
Caged said:
Well Office 365 achieved uptimes of 99.98%, 99.97%, 99.94% and 99.97% in the last four quarters. Using the worst case scenario of 99.94% is 26 minutes of downtime over the entire year. Google's figures are even better than this.

Rebooting for patches once a month would get you to that figure, before you take into account routers having to re-sync, people kicking the plug, hardware issues etc.

Either you work exclusively with rock solid hardware in a stable environment (unlikely to exist in an organisation that has two servers) and software that doesn't need patching, or your chosen providers are terrible.
Click to expand...

Take the Office 365 figures with a grain of salt though, I think they often do maintenance/patching/updates without telling people, and the uptime figures they give are weighted.

I.e. you could have 10 users in a 100 user office who have downtime for hours and they would only not agree that you'd had hours of downtime.

I'm sure the service is alright (not used it myself) but just saying the stats can lie and be twisted about by the marketing people, they may not be a true reflection of actual downtime or uptime.
 
I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say that only 1% of companies should keep their email in-house but for small companies, hosted email is almost always a superior solution.
 
As an aside, there is/was a proposal to move a lot of UK council and local govt email to hosted/cloud solutions such as google apps. It would save a fortune and improve the qos. The higher security level stuff wouldn't be able to move onto it, but the local civic centre doesn't need the same level of security as say 10 downing street, which is more or less how the current system works as I understand it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom