Server Migration

We are currently running Server 2003 on 3 Active/Passive clusters. One
cluster runs SQL, one runs Exchange and the other is for file storage and an
inhouse CRM-type app. Our equipment is has passed it's life cycle and we're
becoming increasingly concerned with failed hardware. We had a server
motherboard die a few weeks ago and IBM wanted $3k for the replacement board
because that server has been discontinued! OUCH!


We want to replace our hardware with something that will offer the same
level of redundancy that we have now but not sure which way to go about it.
We want to get the best bang for our buck.

So far, these have been the ideas we've thrown around:

1. Buy new servers with 1 shared storage array and migrate our exisitng
servers to a virtualized environment

2. Buy new equipment to replace our current equipment and re-configure them
to run MS Cluster just like the way we run it now

3. Buy new servers and set up redundancy using something like Double Take.
I'm assuming this would be the most expensive options because we'd need two
of every server hosting their own storage plus the Doubl Take licenses.

Any suggestions?

A SQL Server, an Exchange Server and a File Server. Well if my memory serves
me well, running Exchange Server in VM is not supported. And depending on
how busy your SQL Server is, I/O intensive application is not recommended to
be virtualized. The only server that you could consider vitalizing is the
File Server.

Tony

"Willis" <willis@donotemailme.com> wrote in message
news:OqancOTHLHA.4120@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> We are currently running Server 2003 on 3 Active/Passive clusters. One
> cluster runs SQL, one runs Exchange and the other is for file storage and
> an inhouse CRM-type app. Our equipment is has passed it's life cycle and
> we're becoming increasingly concerned with failed hardware. We had a
> server motherboard die a few weeks ago and IBM wanted $3k for the
> replacement board because that server has been discontinued! OUCH!
>
>
> We want to replace our hardware with something that will offer the same
> level of redundancy that we have now but not sure which way to go about
> it. We want to get the best bang for our buck.
>
> So far, these have been the ideas we've thrown around:
>
> 1. Buy new servers with 1 shared storage array and migrate our exisitng
> servers to a virtualized environment
>
> 2. Buy new equipment to replace our current equipment and re-configure
> them to run MS Cluster just like the way we run it now
>
> 3. Buy new servers and set up redundancy using something like Double Take.
> I'm assuming this would be the most expensive options because we'd need
> two of every server hosting their own storage plus the Doubl Take
> licenses.
>
> Any suggestions?
>

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 20:31:07 +1000, Tony wrote:

> A SQL Server, an Exchange Server and a File Server. Well if my memory serves
> me well, running Exchange Server in VM is not supported.

It is supported as long as it doesn't have the Unified Messaging role
installed.

--
Paul Adare
MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager
http://www.identit.ca