Exchange 2007 + Win2008 DC

[Miha]

Hi

Is it OK for a small firm about 60 users (1GB mailbox per user) to install
Exchange 2007 on a Windows 2008 domain controller? Or are there any problems
that should I be aware of it? We don't want to wait for a SBS 2008 that will
come in November, so my boss decided to buy full products Win2008 Std +
Exchange 2007.

As I have said we're small firm and have a limited budget, so my plan is the
following:
- buy a new server to run Windows 2008 domain environment + Exchange 2007
* **I'm thinking of a HP DL360 1xQuadCore 8GB RAM 2x146GB SAS in RAID1
- buy a new server to use it for File + APP server
* **I'm thinkig of a HP DL380 1xQuadCore 4GB RAM 4x146GB SAS in RAID5 or
maybe 2x72GB RAID1 + 3x146GB RAID 5
- use an existing server for a second Windows 2008 domain controller, just
buy a Win2008 Std licence

What do you suggest, is this hardware OK, or can it be improved. As I have
mentioned we are very limited with a budget, so I need to find optimal
configuration for our company.

Thank you all in advance.
Best regards,
Miha

[John Oliver, Jr. [MVP]]

My two cents, you would be better served to keep Exchange 2007 on its own
box as a member server or look at VM for Exchange. I have not tested
Exchange 2007 SP1 on Windows 2008 DC but I do believe its supported but not
recommended. Your other option, buy SBS 2003 with Software Assurance so
when SBS 2008 does come out in November you will get the upgrade. Since
your budget is limited, you would be better served to go with SBS as you get
them same technologies for about 1/4 less the cost.

--
John Oliver, Jr
MCSE, MCT, CCNA
Exchange MVP 2008
Microsoft Certified Partner

"Miha" <miha....@email.si> wrote in message
news:O1J3JYX8...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

[Miha]

Thanks, but if I buy SBS 2003 with Software Assurance it's more expensive
that buy ordinary Win2008+Exchange2007 CAL, since SBS 2003 SA prices are 50%
higher than non-SA, and also I have to install SBS 2003 and the upgrade to
2008 in November. I think that the best solution for us is to buy full
licences now, since we need to move to a new environment till September.
What do you think for server wil this do:
- Windows 2008 member server + Exchange 2007 for 60 users (1GB mailbox per
user)
*** HP ProLiant DL360 1xQuadCore 2.33 Ghz, 8GB RAM, 2x146GB SAS in RAID1
- Windows 2008 DC + file + app server
*** HP PRoliant DL380 1xQuadCore 2.33 Ghz, 8GB RAM, 4x146GB SAS in RAID
5

Any suggestions about hardware?
Thanks
Miha

"John Oliver, Jr. [MVP]" <jcoli...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OX6hbOY8...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

[John Oliver, Jr. [MVP]]

If that is the pricing then it would make sense to move now. As for your
config, I would go 16GB for RAM. Again, I would like to reiterate that
running Exchange on a DC is not recommended so I would strongly suggest 2
Servers, one for your DC and one for Exchange.

--
John Oliver, Jr
MCSE, MCT, CCNA
Exchange MVP 2008
Microsoft Certified Partner

"Miha" <miha....@email.si> wrote in message

news:uKO8Bkh8...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

[Miha]

Thanks! I'll make like you suggested Exchange 2k7 as a member server,
running on 1xQuadCore 8GB RAM - that should be sufficient for 60 users,
and another server 1xQuadCore 4GB RAM RAID5 for DC+file+APP server.
Regards,
Miha

"John Oliver, Jr. [MVP]" <jcoli...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:%23$ZWaIm8I...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

[John Fullbright]

You seem to be short a few disks on the Exchange server. I would not put
the DB and logs on the OS drive. You did make a good RAID choice, RAID 1
with a write penalty of 2. Generally, you would want a mirror for the OS, a
mirror for the logs, and a mirror for the dbs. With only 60 users, you
could probably make due with just two mirrors, putting the logs and DBs on
the same disks, you just need to understand where this puts you in terms of
recoverability. If you lose the drive, you lose both logs and database.
You could restore from backup, but you'd be unable to roll the logs forward.

For the file server, RAID 5 is likely a good choice. Usually files are read
far more often than they are written on a file server. You're probably good
with RAID 5's write penalty of 4. If you wanted to be certain, you could
use perfmon to to gather physical disk reads/sec and writes/sec and
calculate your read/write ratio.

What exactly do you mean by "APP Server"? What applications do you intend
to run? For many applications, the memory tuning knob conflicts with file
servers. For file servers you want to use the majority of memory for the
filesystem cache. For many applications, you want to minimize the
filesystem cache and give the memory to the apps. It really just depends
on the application and how memory intensive it is. It's something you'll
want to look at before mixing the roles.

In any event, when choosing a RAID type for any application the rule of
thumb is: If the RAID write penalty is higher than the read/write ratio,
then the RAID type is a poor fit for the application workload.

"Miha" <miha....@email.si> wrote in message

news:uNpsvJt8...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

[Mha]

Thank's for explanation. I'll go with 4 drives for my Exchange 2007 server,
2x72 in RAID1 for system and logs, and 2x146GB for DB. This should be
sufficient.
App server will run just a few 'local' applications, nothing special, so I
think the specified configuration will be sufficient.
Regards,
Miha

"John Fullbright" <fjohn@donotspamnetappdotcom> je napisal v sporočilo
news:%23A8GLNx...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl ...