Hello Newgroup,

We need to upgrade our 4 year old SBS box. I am totally new to
virtualization and wondering if these circumstances warrant making the jump.
We've got approx 30 users, and approx 75 mailboxes. We don't run anything
extra. We're nonprofit, which means that MS licensing costs are negligable,
but it also means that our IT budget is tiny - I'm here approx 10 hours a
week for general support, higher level needs get outsourced.

I had been considering the following path:

> Get a new server, without a tape drive (old server's tape drive recently
> replaced)
> Put Server 2008 and Exchange 2010 on new box.
> Migrate (either manually or with a tool) users and data to new server.
> Wipe old server, install Server 2008, let it run backups and antivirus.

But it's been suggested that I consider instead the following path:

> Get a new server (with ample RAM and processing power). Install Win 2008
> Server core, with HyperV.
> Do a P2V migration of our old SBS install onto a new VM on the new
> machine.
> When we're ready, create a new VM for 2008, migrate AD and data from SBS
> VM.
> Possibly also create VMs to separate out Exchange to its own install,
> maybe also add a Blackberry server?
> Then, how to use old server - still let it run backukps and AV?

As I said, IT hours are precious few for this organization. Would the labor
be similar between the two paths? Are these my advantages for
virtualization:

> Easier disaster recovery
> Would it benefit us to be able to have a separate VM on the same machine
> for Exchange? Wouldn't it still rely on the same amount of resources as
> it would if it were included with 2008, and installed directly on the
> machine?
> Ability to Q/A hasn't really been a factor- once we're set up we tend to
> stay that way.

I'm game to try this, if it makes business sense, but don't want the
additional learning curve if it's just technology for technology's sake.
Not sure if my list of advantages makes it worth the time.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

Matthew

Matthew wrote:

> I'm game to try this, if it makes business sense, but don't want the
> additional learning curve if it's just technology for technology's sake.

I'm not hearing a compelling reason to migrate to virtualization.
Virtualization would be good if you have multiple systems you want to
consolidate to one system.

The only real reason that I see in what you have provided is the ability
to keep the old SBS system around as a VM. However, SBS is funny in the
fact that it wants to control the network. So, either the SBS VM would
be the DC, or it won't be on in the same domain as the new server.

Don't get me wrong, virtualization is great when used for the proper
reasons.

2k8 includes Hyper-V and can be added at any time when wanted / needed.

I would suggest that you not use this server migration as the learning
curve for virtualization with out having messed with it at least on a
workstation before. Wait until you have an actual need.

> Not sure if my list of advantages makes it worth the time.

I'm not seeing any real advantage in the scenario that you have
described. The only thing that suggests using a separate VM to me is
possibly putting a Blackberry Enterprise Server in a VM. Even then,
that VM could run on top of 2k8 running on raw hardware.



Grant. . . .

There are valid reasons to virtualize, but they aren't compelling in your
case, UNLESS you think you're going to want to run a Terminal Server or have
a need to run SQL Server. In either case, you're going to need two servers,
and virtualization makes sense.

With your current plan, you should be considering SBS 2008, not standalone
Windows Server, if you want to stay on a non-virtualized single box.
Exchange on your domain controller, all in one box, is really an SBS
solution, not a standalone one. On the other hand, if you want to move to
standalone products, then virtualization makes sense since it allows you to
put Exchange on a separate server while still only buying a single physical
box.

Virtualizing your old SBS box makes little sense, IMO. What business need do
you have for virtualizing it? What do you gain by doing so?

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel




"Matthew" <adminNOSPAM@newsgroup-intl.org> wrote in message
news:O6V$QjM4KHA.5324@newsgroup

> Hello Newgroup,
>
> We need to upgrade our 4 year old SBS box. I am totally new to
> virtualization and wondering if these circumstances warrant making the
> jump. We've got approx 30 users, and approx 75 mailboxes. We don't run
> anything extra. We're nonprofit, which means that MS licensing costs are
> negligable, but it also means that our IT budget is tiny - I'm here approx
> 10 hours a week for general support, higher level needs get outsourced.
>
> I had been considering the following path:
>

>> Get a new server, without a tape drive (old server's tape drive recently
>> replaced)
>> Put Server 2008 and Exchange 2010 on new box.
>> Migrate (either manually or with a tool) users and data to new server.
>> Wipe old server, install Server 2008, let it run backups and antivirus.

>
> But it's been suggested that I consider instead the following path:
>

>> Get a new server (with ample RAM and processing power). Install Win 2008
>> Server core, with HyperV.
>> Do a P2V migration of our old SBS install onto a new VM on the new
>> machine.
>> When we're ready, create a new VM for 2008, migrate AD and data from SBS
>> VM.
>> Possibly also create VMs to separate out Exchange to its own install,
>> maybe also add a Blackberry server?
>> Then, how to use old server - still let it run backukps and AV?

>
> As I said, IT hours are precious few for this organization. Would the
> labor be similar between the two paths? Are these my advantages for
> virtualization:
>

>> Easier disaster recovery
>> Would it benefit us to be able to have a separate VM on the same machine
>> for Exchange? Wouldn't it still rely on the same amount of resources as
>> it would if it were included with 2008, and installed directly on the
>> machine?
>> Ability to Q/A hasn't really been a factor- once we're set up we tend to
>> stay that way.

>
> I'm game to try this, if it makes business sense, but don't want the
> additional learning curve if it's just technology for technology's sake.
> Not sure if my list of advantages makes it worth the time.
>
> Thanks in advance for your thoughts!
>
> Matthew
>