SBS 2008 SQL server question...

[Brad Pears]

We currently run SBS 2000 but use a separate SQL server 2000 for our
prouduction SQL environment. The SBS 2000 SQL server is only being used for
testing purposes right now.

We are looking at upgrading to either SBS 2003 R2 or SBS 2008. SBS 2008
means we would have to replace our existing SBS server with a 64 bit server
correct? I also understand that with SBS 2008 you can actually split out SQL
2007 and run it on a separate box - which I like the idea of being able to
do.

I have a couple questions...

1) Would you also require a 64bit server to run SQL Server on if you split
it out?
2) Licencing per user.... If I have a total of 20 CALS... does this mean
that I can have 20 concurrent users? Right now I have tons of users that
access the system at various times - I likely have close to 70 or 80 users
in active directory but likely only 20-30 users or so would ever be logged
on at the same time... SBS 2000 allows up to 50 concurrent users. I think I
have licencing for a total of 35 or 40 users or something like that.
3) Is there any really huge benefit to going with SBS 2008 over SBS 2003 R2
if we decided not to split out SQL server? It would mean we wouldn;t have to
upgrade our hardware for one thing so that is why I might entertain it...
that plus the fact that SBS 2008 is so new still... That kind of scares me
with MS products (or any product for that matter)!

Thanks in advance for the advice.

Brad

[SuperGumby [SBS MVP]]

inline

--
SBS remote support services. (Fees apply)
mickm at mickmalloy dot dyndns dot org
"Brad Pears" <br...@truenorthloghomes.com> wrote in message
news:uiFS2dIt...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> We currently run SBS 2000 but use a separate SQL server 2000 for our
> prouduction SQL environment. The SBS 2000 SQL server is only being used
> for testing purposes right now.
>
> We are looking at upgrading to either SBS 2003 R2 or SBS 2008. SBS 2008
> means we would have to replace our existing SBS server with a 64 bit
> server correct? I also understand that with SBS 2008 you can actually
> split out SQL 2007 and run it on a separate box - which I like the idea of
> being able to do.
>
> I have a couple questions...
>
> 1) Would you also require a 64bit server to run SQL Server on if you split
> it out?

2nd server (with SQL) can be either 32 or 64 bit, you get both media.

> 2) Licencing per user.... If I have a total of 20 CALS... does this mean
> that I can have 20 concurrent users? Right now I have tons of users that
> access the system at various times - I likely have close to 70 or 80 users
> in active directory but likely only 20-30 users or so would ever be logged
> on at the same time... SBS 2000 allows up to 50 concurrent users. I think
> I have licencing for a total of 35 or 40 users or something like that.

SBS2003 (and SBS2008) dropped the 'concurrent connection' licensing model. a
'user' CAL is permanently assigned to a human being, or a 'device CAL is
permanently assigned to an object. Sounds like you are near, if not over,
the 75 user/device limit of 2003/8.

> 3) Is there any really huge benefit to going with SBS 2008 over SBS 2003
> R2 if we decided not to split out SQL server? It would mean we wouldn;t
> have to upgrade our hardware for one thing so that is why I might
> entertain it... that plus the fact that SBS 2008 is so new still... That
> kind of scares me with MS products (or any product for that matter)!

If you were already on 2003 I would not be pushing to go to 2008. Either is
an improvement over the (near dead) 2000 you have. In your situation I would
move to 08.

[Brad Pears]

Thanks, I guess the big thing I have to determine is how much it is going to
cost us to get in a 64bit server. If we go to SBS 2003, I can likely run it
on my existing SBS machine which is a dual Xeon RAID5 Dell system. It's 6
years old now but still chugs along pretty good... I'd add some RAM of
course. I think I have 2gb in now... Do you think SBS 2003 will run on
that?

Thanks, Brad

"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <n...@your.nellie> wrote in message
news:uw%23UAuIt...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

[Merv Porter [SBS-MVP]]

Hi Brad:

The SBS 2008 Newsgroup... (might provide better answers)

Signing up for the SBS 2008 newsgroups
http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2008/11/02/signing-up-for-the-sbs-2008-newsgroups.aspx

1) No, you can run 32-bit Windows 2008 on the second server and you'll get
32 (and 64 bit) SQL 2008 media to install on it.

2) You would need to buy SBS 2008 Premium (which comes with 5 Premium
CALs). Then you would need to buy additional Premium CALs for all your
users. As with SBS 2003, SBS 2008 does not use concurrent licensing, so
each user need a CAL. Now as with SBS 2003, you buy CALs as either User or
Device. So, if you have multiple users accessing the SQL database(s) from
the same computer (just at different times during the day), you may be
better off with a Premium Device CAL. Otherwise, each user would need a
Premium User CAL. (NOTE: with SBS 2008 there is no installation of CALs.
You simply purchase the type and quantity you need and then store the
paperwork in a safe place).

SBS 2008 FAQ
http://www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/faq.aspx#licensing

3) You may not be able to buy SBS 2003 R2 as it has been replaced with SBS
2008. However, you can buy SBS 2008 Premium (and User or Device SBS 2008
Premium CALs) and then exercise your 'downgrade rights' to install SBS 2003
R2 Premium (with SQL 2005) on your existing 32-bit server. At a future
date, you could upgrade your hardware and install SBS 2008 Premium, with SQL
2008 (or SQL 2005) on either the SBS server or a second server. (see link
above).

--
Merv Porter [SBS-MVP]
============================

"Brad Pears" <br...@truenorthloghomes.com> wrote in message
news:uiFS2dIt...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

[Merv Porter [SBS-MVP]]

There are a couple of approved (supported) scenarios for using Hyper-V and
SBS 2008. A lot depends on speed of (64-bit) processor, how much RAM you
have, hard drive space, backing up the servers, and a few other issues.

Using Hyper-V with Windows Small Business Server 2008
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd239207.aspx

TTBOMK, running Hyper-v under SBS 2008 is not possible.

--
Merv Porter [SBS-MVP]
============================

"Brad Pears" <br...@truenorthloghomes.com> wrote in message

news:%23BdalDJ...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for your replies... That is very helpful.
>
> One other question... Would you recommend against running vmware or
> hyper-V on an SBS server or as long as the server has the guts would you
> say it is ok to do that? Reason I ask is I may be able to consolidate and
> replace at least one (maybe 2) other smaller servers by running a virtual
> environment...
>
> It appears that no version of SBS 2008 ships with Hyper-V like you can get
> with the standard Windows 2008 server OS... I'm wondering if the reason
> is simply it's not a good idea...
>
> Brad
>
> "Merv Porter [SBS-MVP]" <mwport@no_spam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uFXGEwIt...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

[SuperGumby [SBS MVP]]

adding the HV role to SBS08 puts it into an 'unsupported' state. HOWEVER,
with Premium you can use the 2nd server license as your parent partition and
run SBS08 as a virtual machine, fully supported. Also, if the parent
installation is _only_ those components necessary to run/support HV you can
run another instance of the 2nd server license as your SQL server in a
virtual machine.

We're looking to 32GB RAM to do this.

Also forgot to mention. As well as the Dell model number (to see if it
supports enough RAM) we'd need the CPU model to check for VT capable, if you
wanted to try this on your existing box.

--
SBS remote support services. (Fees apply)
mickm at mickmalloy dot dyndns dot org

"Brad Pears" <br...@truenorthloghomes.com> wrote in message

news:%23BdalDJ...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for your replies... That is very helpful.
>
> One other question... Would you recommend against running vmware or
> hyper-V on an SBS server or as long as the server has the guts would you
> say it is ok to do that? Reason I ask is I may be able to consolidate and
> replace at least one (maybe 2) other smaller servers by running a virtual
> environment...
>
> It appears that no version of SBS 2008 ships with Hyper-V like you can get
> with the standard Windows 2008 server OS... I'm wondering if the reason
> is simply it's not a good idea...
>
> Brad
>
> "Merv Porter [SBS-MVP]" <mwport@no_spam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uFXGEwIt...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

[Brad Pears]

Thanks for your replies... That is very helpful.

One other question... Would you recommend against running vmware or hyper-V
on an SBS server or as long as the server has the guts would you say it is
ok to do that? Reason I ask is I may be able to consolidate and replace at
least one (maybe 2) other smaller servers by running a virtual
environment...

It appears that no version of SBS 2008 ships with Hyper-V like you can get
with the standard Windows 2008 server OS... I'm wondering if the reason is
simply it's not a good idea...

Brad

"Merv Porter [SBS-MVP]" <mwport@no_spam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uFXGEwIt...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

[SuperGumby [SBS MVP]]

SBS03 will run on 2GB but 4 is recommended. CPU/HDDwise she'd be fine.

Which model Dell? It's quite possible it would run SBS08.

Also, I think your greatest expense is going to be the change to CALs, if
you indeed still fit inside 75 users/devices.

SBS08 requires 4GB but particularly for 20-30 active stations you probably
want at least 8, with 0 users 4GB is pretty sloppy.

--
SBS remote support services. (Fees apply)
mickm at mickmalloy dot dyndns dot org
"Brad Pears" <br...@truenorthloghomes.com> wrote in message

news:O8mlu%23ItJH...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

[Brad Pears]

Thanks.... If I was going to go this route (2008 with HV) I would definately
replace the existing Dell box with a higher end unit and use the old one for
DR purposes or something like that....

Thanks again...
Brad

"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <n...@your.nellie> wrote in message

news:OvWvpPJt...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

[Brad Pears]

Just reading this again, and I really do want to have two separate boxes for
SBS and SQL server. So to run SBS 2008 with HV and be "supported", this
would not be possible correct?

Brad
"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <n...@your.nellie> wrote in message
news:OvWvpPJt...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

[Brad Pears]

What about running VMWare ESX on an SBS 2008 server? I recently read an
article on virtualization comparing vmware and hyperV in Windows IT Pro that
in a nutshell indicated that VMWare ESX server was superior to and ran
better than Hyper V... It did say HyperV was a decent product having said
that - jsut not quite as good as the VMware product...

Brad
"Merv Porter [SBS-MVP]" <mwport@no_spam_hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:%23AVKJTJ...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

[SuperGumby [SBS MVP]]

If you want a box for SBS and another box for SQL where does HV come into
it?

or did you leave a 'not' out of that?

Alternative is that you want to separate SQL but run SBS plus other windows
instances on a single box. If none of those other windows instances license
you to make the parent HV the free Microsoft Hyper-V Server could be used.

--
SBS remote support services. (Fees apply)
mickm at mickmalloy dot dyndns dot org
"Brad Pears" <br...@truenorthloghomes.com> wrote in message

news:eEGHGeut...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

[Brad Pears]

In the following scenario (see link below)
wouldn't the primary server be running full blown SBS 2008 (minus SQL
server) and the 2ndary server be running only the 2008 core stuff with HV
and SQL server running in a child partition along with other virtual
environments I will want to have? I just don't want Exchange and the domain
controller on the exact same machine as SQL server... (at least I'd prefer
not to...)

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd239209.aspx

Thanks, Brad

"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <n...@your.nellie> wrote in message

news:e%23JJfEvt...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

[Brad Pears]

Ok, you've been very helpful indeed and it is most appreciated... I'll ask
one last quick question and then kill it on this newsgroup...

For the primary server in the configuration being discussed, when I read
that link I posted to you, it seemed like I could run the primary server on
a 32bit machine BUT the 2nd server if running HV etc... definately had to be
64 bit... Is that correct? If so I could at least use one of my newer Dell
servers for the primary server... or would you advise against it and just
go with two new 64 bit servers?? I'm jsut thinking about trying to keep the
costs down for a move like this... We are only a 32 bit environment.
Bringing in two new machines plus the new os and licenses etc...etc...
that's a lot of cost...

Thanks Brad

"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <n...@your.nellie> wrote in message

news:%23ezcQpv...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> yes, that is a valid scenario. The '2nd server' license has '1+1 rights'
> which can be used to do a base install of Windows with the Hyper-V role
> enabled (ie. it doesn't actually have to be 'core' but can be a full
> windows install, of only those components necessary to support Hyper-V)
> and a 2nd instance to run your SQL on the same box with additional child
> partitions used for other windows instances.
>
> This thread _really_ needs to move to the SBS08 forum,
> http://www.sbs2008.com/ for details.

>
> --
> SBS remote support services. (Fees apply)
> mickm at mickmalloy dot dyndns dot org
> "Brad Pears" <br...@truenorthloghomes.com> wrote in message

> news:eGj6efvt...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

[SuperGumby [SBS MVP]]

yes, that is a valid scenario. The '2nd server' license has '1+1 rights'
which can be used to do a base install of Windows with the Hyper-V role
enabled (ie. it doesn't actually have to be 'core' but can be a full windows
install, of only those components necessary to support Hyper-V) and a 2nd
instance to run your SQL on the same box with additional child partitions
used for other windows instances.

This thread _really_ needs to move to the SBS08 forum,
http://www.sbs2008.com/ for details.

--

SBS remote support services. (Fees apply)
mickm at mickmalloy dot dyndns dot org
"Brad Pears" <br...@truenorthloghomes.com> wrote in message

news:eGj6efvt...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

[SuperGumby [SBS MVP]]

SBS08 is 64bit only. The 2nd server, without virtualisation, can be either
32 or 64 but for virtualisation the 2nd server hardware must be (both 64
and) VT capable.

--
SBS remote support services. (Fees apply)
mickm at mickmalloy dot dyndns dot org
"Brad Pears" <br...@truenorthloghomes.com> wrote in message

news:enAtPuvt...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

[Merv Porter [SBS-MVP]]

Sorry, I don't have any experience with ESX.

--
Merv Porter [SBS-MVP]
============================

"Brad Pears" <br...@truenorthloghomes.com> wrote in message

news:el%23TUUut...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

[Brad Pears]

OK, thanks.

Brad
"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <n...@your.nellie> wrote in message

news:%23Ac8d2v...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

[Brad Pears]

I lied - one more question... Last one I promise though! Can a Windows 2003
server be used as a backup (or member) domain controller in an SBS08 domain
at all? If not, can the 2nd server in an SBS08 installation be used as the
backup domain controller somehow?

Thanks, Brad
"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <n...@your.nellie> wrote in message

news:%23Ac8d2v...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

[Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP]]

Are you talking about in a remote office location?

Otherwise there is no value to an additional DC in an SBS environment

--
Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP]
Co-Contributor, Windows Small Business Server 2008 Unleashed
http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Small-Business-Server-Unleashed/dp/0672329573/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217269967&sr=8-1
Owner, CPU Services, Belleville, IL
A Microsoft Registered Partner
------------------------------------
MVPs do not work for Microsoft
Please do not submit questions directly to me.

"Brad Pears" <br...@truenorthloghomes.com> wrote in message news:e5rFbr5t...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

[Brad Pears]

No - not necessarily a remote office.

Wouldn't it be adviseable to have another domain controller available in case the SBS machine goes offline for whatever reason? i.e. for domain authentication allowing the user to access shared resources on other file servers in the environment or allowing users to log onto their terminal server sessions (when the terminal server is a different machine than the SBS machine) etc... etc... 

 

Brad

"Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP]" <crisnos...@cpunospamservices.net> wrote in message news:eB8PQ35t...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

[Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP]]

Well now you are talking lots of servers

Terminal Server should never be on a Domain Controller

So there's two physical boxes besides the SBS box

If you have an additional DC, it needs to be a DNS server, Global Catalog Server, DHCP (configured but not active) and so on.  But you can't have it become the SBS server

--
Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP]
Co-Contributor, Windows Small Business Server 2008 Unleashed
http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Small-Business-Server-Unleashed/dp/0672329573/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217269967&sr=8-1
Owner, CPU Services, Belleville, IL
A Microsoft Registered Partner
------------------------------------
MVPs do not work for Microsoft
Please do not submit questions directly to me.

"Brad Pears" <br...@truenorthloghomes.com> wrote in message news:ebxana6t...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

[Brad Pears]

You are correct there...  Yes, I would only want the add'l domain controller so that users could still gain access to other services in the event of an SBS failure. Yes, TS should never be on a domain controller.I'm just wondering if this add'l domain controller (doing nothing else but that) can be a 2003 server at all or if it would HAVE to be another 2008 server... I suspect the latter?

 

Brad

 

"Cris Hanna [SBS - MVP]" <crisnos...@cpunospamservices.net> wrote in message news:%23fTek%236tJH...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

[Larry Struckmeyer [SBS-MVP]]

How long would you expect your SBS to be "off line"?  Users can logon to their computers many times before the cached credentials are lost, (I don't know the exact number, it may not be an exact number).  You can test if this allows access to your other resources by pulling the patch cord out of the SBS and logging off/on a few workstations.

 

Actually, since this has never happened to any of the networks that I look after, I would be interested in the results.  It has never happened because I have never had a SBS server go off line for more than the scheduled restarts for updates or adding more RAM or drives.

--
Larry
Please post the resolution to your
issue so that others may benefit.

 

 

"Brad Pears" <br...@truenorthloghomes.com> wrote in message news:uyFtjw7t...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

[Brad Pears]

Yes, we have also been fortunate for the msot part but I did have a mother board go on the SBS machine and it was the next day before we were back up and running. Users could not do all kinds of things...  and were not happy... That was when I decided to install the additional domain controller as a backup...  It works - but everything is much slower...

 

I will have to test that out though becasue I am not sure either how long the cached AD info is maintained...

 

Brad

"Larry Struckmeyer [SBS-MVP]" <lstruc...@mis-wizards.com> wrote in message news:ObVLa3Ku...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...