All of that on one server is a bad, bad idea. SCCM in itself is very heavy and ideally wants to live on its own hardware. It needs its own SQL server which is very RAM and disk intensive. Deploying software and OS images are I/O intensive in themselves and if they're coming from the same server that's serving files and your SIMS database...
For the future I'm hoping to use it as 'my baby' and put SCCM, WSUS, MDT and images on it, possibly remote access. Maybe something like Impero, but basically have it as the server for controlling the environment. Maybe even looking at VM's in the future. Hopefully it will be the main server for backups and software deployment and have all the cool toys in one place without upsetting the school 'production environment' while I'm working on things and testing or if an install of any of the above goes bad. Also it will be taking the 'roles'... As for school data, SIMS, print server and such that will all be done from the other server, but they will both be DC's as I'm nervous about only having one. Anyway, suffice to say 'I' have big plans for this server and I'd like it to be able to be enough to cope with at least some future IT needs...
Sorry, wall of text might have made that a TL;DR... it's the 'other' server that holds SIMS, serves files and does print management. This new server will be the one for SCCM etc... Hence the reason for wanting RDIMMS and SCSI drives.
Ah right, sorry, wasn't a tl;dr, just misread on my part.
Don't worry too much about the speed of your RAM, the amount of it is more important. It's better to have 32GB of slower RAM than 16GB of fast RAM, especially on a box hosting SQL.
Good IO throughput is important but so is overall capacity. I have just under a terabyte of storage on my ConfigMgr server and I have just under 76GB left on the volume that's holding my DP. I want more storage on there but I don't know if I'll be able to get it. Get some big SAS (600GB minimum) drives in there if you can get the budget but don't stress too much about putting SATA ones in there if you end up having to.
One thing which has limited me when repurposing servers when they become EOL in their primary role is hard drive bay number. I tend to use whichever old server is the best and use it as a storage or backup box. With that in mind I'd upgrade the front of the chassis to accept the largest number of hard drives possible, even if you don't plan on using the capacity now.
An extra £100 or so now saves you from having the buy a whole server just for backups in the future.
Running WDS/WSUS/Software Deploy/Printer etc, doesn't really use that much processing, unless you're talking thousands of machines.
Originally Posted by Norphy
SCCM in itself is very heavy and ideally wants to live on its own hardware. It needs its own SQL server which is very RAM and disk intensive. Deploying software and OS images are I/O intensive in themselves...
Hmmm... Well for every point of view there is an opposite I guess, it's all relative and down to each individual experience.
Originally Posted by Norphy
Putting SCCM on a DC is not recommended however.
Thing is it's getting more and more like that, but in reality I can't put SIMS on it's own server (as has been suggested somewhere), SCCM on it's own server, have another for this, another for that...
It will be a DC because we will only ever have 2 servers and I just don't like the idea of only having 1 DC with no replication/back-up on-line, working and ready to step in. I mean I guess I could have some much smaller servers and more of them, or go the virtual route (although that's not giving them their own hardware) and I'm sure hardware failure taking down 2 or 3 VM's as well as the host is easier to reinstate, but it's a whole other (practically vertical) learning curve for me to deal with.
Now I have started to get used to Server 2012 I am starting to really like it! Yes it looks very different from Server 2003 and server 2008 but there is a load of stuff you can learn how to do on Microsoft Virtual Academy